The ProgressivesCaucus actually gained members this election

[Dominus Atheos]

So the conservative and pussy caucuses got wiped out, but the Progressive caucus stayed almost fully intact.

[Dominus Atheos]

My mistake, I was wrong.

Democrats picked up three seats from Republicans, making good on some prior anomalies and realigning correctly. Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01), Cedric Richmond (LA-02) and John Carney (DE-AL) all won. Of those, I would say Hanabusa and Richmond will join the Progressive Caucus. In AL-07, Terri Sewell replaced Artur Davis. She’s a lot more progressive than he ever was, and she will likely join the caucus. David Cicilline (RI-01), the replacement for Patrick Kennedy and another openly gay member of Congress, is likely to join (Patrick Kennedy never did). The race that a progressive lost in a primary, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (MI-13), was over ethical issues, and she’ll be replaced by Hansen Clarke, likely to join the caucus.

What’s likely, then, is an increase in the ranks of the Progressive Caucus numbers.

Naturally the dem leadership will ignore these fact in favor of the narrative "we weren't conservative enough."

Title changed accordingly.

[RedImperator]

That's a fairly one-dimensional analysis--a lot of those Blue Dogs were in conservative districts and probably would have lost their seats no matter what happened. The Democrats were overextended; they picked up a lot of conservative-leaning districts in '06 and '08 because people were so fucking disgusted with Bush.

That said, there are lessons to be learned here. One is that if you're a conservative Democrat, even voting against your party leadership's most important legislative priorities won't save you if there's a Republican surge. Ornery Republicans don't vote for conservative Democrats--they vote for Republicans (liberal Republicans learned the same lesson in '06 and '08). So, you know, maybe next time the Dems have a majority in the House and the conservative Democrats are dragging their feet on a piece of important legislation, whoever the Speaker is should just stick a gavel up their collective ass.

What I'd really like to see is a breakdown of the districts held by progressive Democrats. Does being a true-blue progressive give you a better shot in toss-up districts, or did the progressives only win in safe seats?

[Crossroads Inc.]

From what I have heared (and I don't have links right now) those that actually ran on progressive issues and things like Health reform and Wallstreet reform had better Democratic turnout then those that tried to just appeal to the mindless middle.

All of this reminds me of something my Dad often says, that:

"When republicans loose an election, they instantly say "We lost because we were not consrevative enough,
When democrats loose an election they say "We lost... because we were not consrevative enough."

One has to woner when the Democratic leadership will realize that the way to energize the part is to, in someway, behave like the GOP, IE stop trying to placate the 'other side' and appeal to the base. The bonus is that, unlike the far right, appealing to the progressive base will make them appear over all more attractive to the cnetrists in America. Where-as the more the GOP appeal to their own base, the more wacko they seem.

[Morilore]

I'm really tempted to chalk this whole thing up to a simplistic idea: Dems got hammered because their campaign strategy was all about "Republicans really suck you guys" - as opposed to 2008, in which Obama made people feel good about voting for him, instead of just against McCain. Does this data support or refute that narrative? I want to say that progressive Democrats would have the most "distinctiveness" with which they could promote themselves as themselves, instead of just "we aren't Repubs," but I can't back that up.

[Big Phil]

I think this might say it best:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/gallery. ... tion%20Day