The Bush Dog campiagn, started at Open Left with this analysis by Chris Bowers. Its focus so far is merely criticizing representatives who supported Bush on FISA and the Iraq War, and suggesting that some of them should be subject to primary challenges.
With the example of Joe Liebarman apparently still fresh in people's mind, the p-word seems as hard to handle as the i-word, and over-reaction is the order of the day. Above all, we are told that the members in question are not at fault, that they have to vote that way because of their districts. But a simple, straighforward analysis shows that this just isn't true.... On the jump.
One of the most common responses to the Bush Dog campaign is that "You don't live here; you don't know what you're talking about; you want to elect a liberal Democrat to this district; and it can't be done; we'd end up losing in a landslide."
That's a big mouthful, and ordinarily I'm the kind of guy who would sit down to parse it, and answer its various parts. But I'm not going to do that in this diary. Instead, I'm going for the heart of the argument--that this is the sort of Democrat we have to run to win in this kind of district. I'm going to refute that assumption in the most straightforward way possible: I'm going to compare Bush Dogs to non-Bush Dogs in fairly similar districts.
The analysis will clearly show that it's the members, not the districts that are the problem.
A First Look At Bush Dogs v. Non-Bush Dogs In Battleground Districts
Let's begin by looking at all the Democrats in the Democracy Corps list of 35 Democratic Battleground district for this year, divided into two tiers, and into Bush Dogs and non-Bush Dogs.
At first glance, it looks like those arguing it's the district have a pretty solid case. Just look at how much more Republican the Bush Dog districts are. Five Bush Dogs in Tier I haver districts more Republican than Nancy' Boyda's KS-1 district, and the non-Bush Dogs in Tier II are almost all in lean-Dem districts:
Tier I |
Bush Dogs | Non-Bush Dogs |
Member | Dist. | PVI | Member | Dist. | PVI |
Lampson | TX-22 | -14.5 | Boyda | KS-02 | -7.0 |
Carney | PA-10 | -8.0 | Kagen | WI-08 | -3.7 |
Marshall | GA-08 | -8.0 | Mitchell | AZ-05 | -3.7 |
Hill | IN-09 | -7.1 | McNerney | CA-11 | -3.0 |
Shuler | NC-11 | -7.1 | Gillibrand | NY-20 | -2.5 |
Space | OH-18 | -6.1 | Mahoney | FL-16 | -2.0 |
Bean | IL-08 | -5.2 | Hall | NY-19 | -1.5 |
Altmire | PA-04 | -2.6 | Giffords | AZ-08 | -1.4 |
Barrow | GA-12 | -2.0 | Shea-Porter | NH-01 | 0.0 |
Walz | MN-01 | -0.9 | Murphy | PA-08 | 3.4 |
Boswell | IA-03 | 1.4 | Murphy | CT-05 | 3.7 |
AVG: | -- | -5.5 | AVG: | -- | -1.6 |
Tier II: |
Bush Dogs | Non-Bush Dogs |
Member | Dist. | PVI | Member | Dist. | PVI |
Edwards | TX-17 | -17.7 | Stupak | MI-01 | -0.6 |
Ellsworth | IN-08 | -8.5 | Arcuri | NY-24 | -0.6 |
Melancon | LA-03 | -4.8 | Perlmutter | CO-07 | 2.3 |
Donnelly | IN-02 | -4.3 | Hodes | NH-02 | 2.7 |
Ciro Rodriguez | TX-23 | -4.0 | Sestak | PA-07 | 3.6 |
AVG: | -- | -7.9 | Courtney | CT-02 | 7.6 |
| | | Carson | IN-07 | 9.0 |
| | | Allen | ME-01 | 9.9 |
| | | AVG: | -- | 4.2 |
A Closer Look At Bush Dogs v. Non-Bush Dogs In Battleground Districts
But wait a second! You can't tell anything with that sort of quick-glance "analysis." You can't compare apples to crab-apples. You have to compare Gravensteins to Gravensteins. And to do that, we'll need to have districts that are roughly similar as a group. To get such a pair of groups, I took the 6 most Democratic of the Bush Dog's Tier I seats, and the 6 least Democratic of the non-Bush Dogs seats in Tier I. I've shaded them slightly in the chart below, so it's easy to see which ones I'm talking about, and it's easy to see that they are generally comparable. In fact, it turns out that the non-Bush Dog seats are somewhat more Republican than the Bush Dog seats are. Now we've got samples we can compare.
Tier I |
Bush Dogs | Non-Bush Dogs |
Member | Dist. | PVI | Member | Dist. | PVI |
Lampson | TX-22 | -14.5 | Boyda | KS-02 | -7.0 |
Carney | PA-10 | -8.0 | Kagen | WI-08 | -3.7 |
Marshall | GA-08 | -8.0 | Mitchell | AZ-05 | -3.7 |
Hill | IN-09 | -7.1 | McNerney | CA-11 | -3.0 |
Shuler | NC-11 | -7.1 | Gillibrand | NY-20 | -2.5 |
Space | OH-18 | -6.1 | Mahoney | FL-16 | -2.0 |
Bean | IL-08 | -5.2 | Hall | NY-19 | -1.5 |
Altmire | PA-04 | -2.6 | Giffords | AZ-08 | -1.4 |
Barrow | GA-12 | -2.0 | Shea-Porter | NH-01 | 0.0 |
Walz | MN-01 | -0.9 | Murphy | PA-08 | 3.4 |
Boswell | IA-03 | 1.4 | Murphy | CT-05 | 3.7 |
AVG: | -- | -5.5 | AVG: | -- | -1.6 |
Comparing Comparable Districts: Bush Dogs v. Non-Bush Dogs In Battleground Districts
Now that we've got our samples, let's stack them up, the non-Bush Dogs together on top, and the Bush Dogs beneath them. We can see at a glance that the non-Bush Dogs' districts average about one percentage point more Republican than the Bush Dogs' districts. We also see that the non-Bush Dogs have higher Progressive Punch totals. All their totals are in the 80s, except for one inthe 90s. The Bush Dogs are all in the 60s and 70s, again, except for one in the 90s. We can also see that there is no subcategory in which Bush Dogs are more progressive. This is a clear indication that what we are looking at is an ideological difference, not a difference that's due to the districts they are in.
Bush Dogs (Bottom of Tier 1) vs. Non-Bush Dogs (Top of Tier 1) - Sorted Separately By Progressive Punch Score |
Member | Dist. | PVI | Bush Dog? | Prog Punch Total | Hous- ing | Labor Rights | En- viron- ment | Corp- orate Sub- sidies | Govern- ment Checks on Corp- orate Power | Health Care | Aid to Less Advant- aged People, at Home & Abroad | Making Gov't Work for Every- one, Not Just the Rich or Power- ful | War & Peace | Human Rights & Civil Lib- erties | Fair Tax- ation | Edu- cation, Human- ities, & the Arts | Justice for All: Civil and Crim- inal | Family Plan- ning |
Boyda | KS-02 | -7 | N | 84.4 | 100.0 | 77.8 | 87.0 | 100.0 | 93.1 | 100.0 | 97.3 | 87.5 | 96.0 | 76.0 | 95.0 | 90.9 | 62.5 | (N/A) |
Kagen | WI-08 | -3.7 | N | 91.4 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 93.8 | 94.7 | 94.0 | 92.3 | 96.2 | 90.5 | 83.3 | 75.0 | (N/A) |
Mitchell | AZ-05 | -3.7 | N | 80.1 | 100.0 | 94.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 96.6 | 93.8 | 94.7 | 91.0 | 92.3 | 88.5 | 81.0 | 83.3 | 62.5 | (N/A) |
McNerney | CA-11 | -3 | N | 87.5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 93.8 | 92.1 | 91.0 | 92.3 | 84.6 | 81.0 | 83.3 | 62.5 | (N/A) |
Gillibrand | NY-20 | -2.5 | N | 84.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 96.6 | 93.8 | 94.7 | 94.0 | 92.3 | 92.3 | 90.5 | 83.3 | 62.5 | (N/A) |
Mahoney | FL-16 | -2 | N | 80.9 | 100.0 | 94.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 96.6 | 93.8 | 89.5 | 94.0 | 92.3 | 92.3 | 85.7 | 83.3 | 62.5 | (N/A) |
NBD Ave* | -- | -3.7 | N | 84.9 | 100.0 | 94.5 | 97.8 | 100.0 | 97.1 | 94.8 | 93.9 | 92.0 | 92.9 | 88.3 | 87.3 | 84.6 | 64.6 | (N/A) |
|
|
|
Space | OH-18 | -6.1 | Y | 79.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 95.8 | 80.0 | 86.2 | 87.5 | 89.5 | 92.5 | 88.5 | 88.5 | 81.0 | 83.3 | 62.5 | (N/A) |
Bean | IL-08 | -5.2 | Y | 75.5 | 100.0 | 96.7 | 92.3 | 85.7 | 89.2 | 83.3 | 85.2 | 85.5 | 83.7 | 81.4 | 77.8 | 75.0 | 62.8 | 100.0 |
Altmire | PA-04 | -2.6 | Y | 72.6 | 93.8 | 100.0 | 95.8 | 80.0 | 89.7 | 93.8 | 92.1 | 91.0 | 92.3 | 84.6 | 76.2 | 83.3 | 62.5 | (N/A) |
Barrow | GA-12 | -2 | Y | 67.4 | 94.7 | 86.7 | 84.6 | 93.3 | 89.4 | 80.0 | 81.8 | 79.5 | 72.1 | 72.9 | 72.2 | 70.8 | 60.5 | 83.3 |
Walz | MN-01 | -0.9 | Y | 90.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 93.8 | 94.7 | 94.0 | 92.3 | 96.2 | 90.5 | 83.3 | 75.0 | (N/A) |
Boswell | IA-03 | 1.4 | Y | 70.8 | 87.5 | 79.4 | 71.1 | 76.1 | 74.7 | 86.8 | 82.0 | 79.6 | 69.9 | 75.2 | 82.2 | 80.4 | 64.3 | 64.0 |
BD Avg* | -- | -2.6 | Y | 76.2 | 96.0 | 93.8 | 90.0 | 85.9 | 88.2 | 87.5 | 87.6 | 87.1 | 83.1 | 83.1 | 80.0 | 79.4 | 64.6 | 41.2 |
NBD Avg - BD Avg | | -1.1 | | 8.7 | 4.0 | 0.8 | 7.9 | 14.2 | 8.9 | 7.3 | 6.3 | 4.9 | 9.8 | 5.2 | 7.3 | 5.2 | 0.0 | (N/A) |
* BD Avg = Bush Dog Average, NBD Avg = Non-Bush Dog Average.
The lack of overlap between the groups--with the sole exception of Walz--is even more striking if we sort them all together, including the respective averages, which I do in the last of the charts:
Bush Dogs (Bottom of Tier 1) vs. Non-Bush Dogs (Top of Tier 1) - Sorted Together By Progressive Punch Score |
Member | Dist. | PVI | Bush Dog? | Prog Punch Total | Hous- ing | Labor Rights | En- viron- ment | Corp- orate Sub- sidies | Govern- ment Checks on Corp- orate Power | Health Care | Aid to Less Advant- aged People, at Home & Abroad | Making Gov't Work for Every- one, Not Just the Rich or Power- ful | War & Peace | Human Rights & Civil Lib- erties | Fair Tax- ation | Edu- cation, Human- ities, & the Arts | Justice for All: Civil and Crim- inal | Family Plan- ning |
Kagen | WI-08 | -3.7 | N | 91.4 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 93.8 | 94.7 | 94.0 | 92.3 | 96.2 | 90.5 | 83.3 | 75.0 | (N/A) |
Walz | MN-01 | -0.9 | Y | 90.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 93.8 | 94.7 | 94.0 | 92.3 | 96.2 | 90.5 | 83.3 | 75.0 | (N/A) |
McNerney | CA-11 | -3 | N | 87.5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 93.8 | 92.1 | 91.0 | 92.3 | 84.6 | 81.0 | 83.3 | 62.5 | (N/A) |
Gillibrand | NY-20 | -2.5 | N | 84.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 96.6 | 93.8 | 94.7 | 94.0 | 92.3 | 92.3 | 90.5 | 83.3 | 62.5 | (N/A) |
NBD Ave* | -- | -3.7 | N | 84.9 | 100.0 | 94.5 | 97.8 | 100.0 | 97.1 | 94.8 | 93.9 | 92.0 | 92.9 | 88.3 | 87.3 | 84.6 | 64.6 | (N/A) |
Boyda | KS-02 | -7 | N | 84.4 | 100.0 | 77.8 | 87.0 | 100.0 | 93.1 | 100.0 | 97.3 | 87.5 | 96.0 | 76.0 | 95.0 | 90.9 | 62.5 | (N/A) |
Mahoney | FL-16 | -2 | N | 80.9 | 100.0 | 94.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 96.6 | 93.8 | 89.5 | 94.0 | 92.3 | 92.3 | 85.7 | 83.3 | 62.5 | (N/A) |
Mitchell | AZ-05 | -3.7 | N | 80.1 | 100.0 | 94.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 96.6 | 93.8 | 94.7 | 91.0 | 92.3 | 88.5 | 81.0 | 83.3 | 62.5 | (N/A) |
Space | OH-18 | -6.1 | Y | 79.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 95.8 | 80.0 | 86.2 | 87.5 | 89.5 | 92.5 | 88.5 | 88.5 | 81.0 | 83.3 | 62.5 | (N/A) |
BD Avg* | -- | -2.6 | Y | 76.2 | 96.0 | 93.8 | 90.0 | 85.9 | 88.2 | 87.5 | 87.6 | 87.1 | 83.1 | 83.1 | 80.0 | 79.4 | 64.6 | 41.2 |
Bean | IL-08 | -5.2 | Y | 75.5 | 100.0 | 96.7 | 92.3 | 85.7 | 89.2 | 83.3 | 85.2 | 85.5 | 83.7 | 81.4 | 77.8 | 75.0 | 62.8 | 100.0 |
Altmire | PA-04 | -2.6 | Y | 72.6 | 93.8 | 100.0 | 95.8 | 80.0 | 89.7 | 93.8 | 92.1 | 91.0 | 92.3 | 84.6 | 76.2 | 83.3 | 62.5 | (N/A) |
Boswell | IA-03 | 1.4 | Y | 70.8 | 87.5 | 79.4 | 71.1 | 76.1 | 74.7 | 86.8 | 82.0 | 79.6 | 69.9 | 75.2 | 82.2 | 80.4 | 64.3 | 64.0 |
Barrow | GA-12 | -2 | Y | 67.4 | 94.7 | 86.7 | 84.6 | 93.3 | 89.4 | 80.0 | 81.8 | 79.5 | 72.1 | 72.9 | 72.2 | 70.8 | 60.5 | 83.3 |
NBD Avg - BD Avg | | -1.1 | | 8.7 | 4.0 | 0.8 | 7.9 | 14.2 | 8.9 | 7.3 | 6.3 | 4.9 | 9.8 | 5.2 | 7.3 | 5.2 | 0.0 | (N/A) |
* BD Avg = Bush Dog Average, NBD Avg = Non-Bush Dog Average
The above chart makes it very clear that the Bush Dog votes are coming from Democrats who are noticeable more conservative across the board than other Democrats in comparable, even slightly more conservative districts. Indeed, as I've shown in "Vital Stats on "Bush Dogs"--Battleground Status AND Progressive Punch Scores By Issue Category," there are only 3 other Bush Dogs with Progressive Punch scores of over 80, and two of those are in safe districts, while one other is in a Tier 2 district.
What's happening with the Bush Dog votes, however, goes beyond normal ideological limits. It represents a profound buy-in to rightwing framining, which has been so broadly rejected that virtually no Congressional District in the country is asking for--much less demanding--votes that are this far out of step with the Democratic Party. While the background of these votes is ideological, there are other, reality-denying dynamics at play. Just one of those dynamics involves a denial of the very real choices that such officeholders have, and the responsibility they hold for votes that are deeply damaging to the party and to America as a whole.