Blue Dog Democrats Today

Preferably with a POD after Reagan's presidency, what would it take to have Blue Dog Democrats a major player in the Democratic Party today? Some ideas that I've had were:
  • Clinton loses in 1992. (Could a Blue Dog become the Democratic nominee in 1996?)
  • A relatively Conservative Democrats runs in 1988 (Maybe Lloyd Bensten?)
Also with the Blue Dogs as a significant force what would that mean for the political landscape from what I gathered while they are socially and fiscally conservative they're also protectionists. So would that cause the main dividing lines between Democrats and Republicans to be over Free Trade instead of Abortion and Gun Control? Any other big differences from OTL?
 
Can we define terms here...in my day, they were "Yellow Dog Democrats" meaning they'd "sooner vote for a Yella' Dog than a Republican". Without honoring the then extant reason why (think racists), I would classify myself as the modern day equivalent, preferring to vote for a dog, or a can of paint, etc., anything opposing a republican before I'd vote for a republican...is that what you mean?
 
Can we define terms here...in my day, they were "Yellow Dog Democrats" meaning they'd "sooner vote for a Yella' Dog than a Republican". Without honoring the then extant reason why (think racists), I would classify myself as the modern day equivalent, preferring to vote for a dog, or a can of paint, etc., anything opposing a republican before I'd vote for a republican...is that what you mean?

I think "Blue Dog" just means "conservative Democrats", with no specific implication about how diehard they are(as was the case with "Yellow Dogs"). But it's probably the case that most 1990s southern Democrats who survived from the days of the Yellow Dogs would qualify as Blue Dogs.

Incidentally, "Blue Dog" is yet one more example of the confusing color semiotics in contemporary American politics: within the Democratic party itself, "blue" indicates right-wing, but when the two parties are being compared, "blue" means Democratic, ie. the more left-wing of the two parties.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Can we define terms here...in my day, they were "Yellow Dog Democrats" meaning they'd "sooner vote for a Yella' Dog than a Republican". Without honoring the then extant reason why (think racists), I would classify myself as the modern day equivalent, preferring to vote for a dog, or a can of paint, etc., anything opposing a republican before I'd vote for a republican...is that what you mean?
Blue Dogs are roughly the Democratic equivalent of a a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Meaning the rest of the party sees them as being far more Conservative than they are and more likely to cross party lines on close votes. Blue Dogs and RINOs are more common in "purple" states where they've got to try to play to both sides or when a Republican or Democrat holds a seat in a state that otherwise leans strongly toward the opposite party.
 
Blue Dogs are roughly the Democratic equivalent of a a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Meaning the rest of the party sees them as being far more Conservative than they are and more likely to cross party lines on close votes. Blue Dogs and RINOs are more common in "purple" states where they've got to try to play to both sides or when a Republican or Democrat holds a seat in a state that otherwise leans strongly toward the opposite party.

Another problem is that Blue Dogs generally have more in common with Republicans than their fellow Democrats. That rings true not just for today, but also for their ideological ancestors during the New Deal period. Conservative Democrats and most Republicans formed a Conservative Coalition to block further progressive reforms, frustrating FDR during his last six years as well as JFK in the early 1960's. Blue Dogs aren't as conservative as the modern GOP, but it's no surprise they marched practically in lock-step with Ronald Reagan on domestic issues. So it's hard to see how Blue Dogs can be anything more than a small conservative voice in a party that's been liberal since the 1930's.
 
An example is Jim Cooper, Congressman for Tennessee's 5th district (basically Nashville and some rural areas), who has a big sticker of a blue dog on the door of his office in downtown Nashville. He's hated amongst Republicans in his district, and he's also seen as being too moderate amongst progressives, yet supposedly the Republican-controlled Tennessee legislature would draw his district out from under him if a more progressive Democrat took office. Other Blue Dog Democrats toe a similar balance.
 
If Clinton and the DLC lose in 92 could it give an ambitious Blue Dog to become the nominee or would the Democrats just revert to a liberal like Mario Cuomo?
 

thorr97

Banned
"Blue Dog Democrats" were a rare thing even in the 1990s and they're essentially non-existent today. The direction the Democratic Party elite was headed to back in the 90s was to destroy the coalition which the Blue Dog types were very much a part of. The DLC was providing the intellectual and ideological support and rationale for that. The Democratic Party's elite were also "bundling" the money toward that end as well. Bill Clinton was one of the DLC's "poster children."

So, if Bill Clinton lost I think that the "powers-that-be" in the Democratic Party would've viewed it as but a minor set back on their pre-ordained and inevitable path which they were steadily driving the Democratic Party toward.

Perhaps it'd just delay the OTL "progress" by a single four year span as it'd be an almost certainty that a Democrat would get the nod in '96.
 
Top