Interesting article here: <link> Election Results Chill Moderate Democrats in Congress The story is somewhat predictable, Democrats in red states getting worried. I thought this closing was interesting though: "On the other hand, some liberals argued that Tuesday's election results will prod Congress to act more quickly on the Democrats' agenda. "People are going to be more determined to get something done," said Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., "because they realize that by doing nothing, we'll have more to answer for when we go home."" Interesting. Will Pelosi and Reid decide to speed up now? Which is the more dangerous constituency to blue dogs, progressives angry at a No vote, or conservatives angry at a Yes vote? Who will have the power/momentum a year from now?

The premise of the article is based on the idea that yesterday's election results have some relevancy or predictive power for next years elections. They don't. The results from these states in the past is about as predictive of the following years elections as a coin toss.

Teabaggers? I think not.

The answer is that Blue Dog Dems are much more afraid of conservatives angry at a yes votes.

Why? Because of the following reasons - most of the Blue Dogs represent tradition Republican or conservative districts or states, and angry conservative voters are much more likely to vote than angry progressive votes especially in off-year elections.

My prediction is that Blue Dog democrats will view this election as a sign that it is time to begin distancing themselves from the Obama-Pelosi-Reid wing of the Democratic party. In other words, this means that Health Care Reform and Cap-and-trade will NOT pass.

There's no question that health care reform will pass- that much is not really debatable and that you would make the claim just shows you as being unable to see reality through your partisan blinders. The only question is whether or not the health care bill will include a public option and which version.

I think it’s just the opposite, Ohio. The Blue Dogs were elected because Democrats voted for them. They aren’t going to get re-elected acting like Republicans. The voters who want Republicans are going to vote Republican and not for a Democrat acting like a Republican. Their only way through re-election is to get the Dem votes and they know it. This is all smoke and mirrors. The bill needs 60 votes to reach the floor for a substantive vote. It will get it, because while a couple of Blue Dogs may vote against the bill when it only needs 51 votes to pass a substantive vote, they aren’t going to dare vote against bringing the bill to the floor (and for that matter, neither will Lieberman). They need the Dems in their districts or there will be no re-election. This actually drives them closer to Obama.

"There's no question that health care reform will pass- that much is not really debatable and that you would make the claim just shows you as being unable to see reality through your partisan blinders."

Why is that not debateable? I thought you guys were the reality-based community? What's putting on blinders is not even admitting the possibility that HCR is in jeopardy. Here's another article: <link>

"“I should be nervous,” said Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Huntsville, Ala.

Griffith said the Democratic rank and file is “very, very sensitive” to the fact that issues being pushed by party leaders “have the potential to cost some of our front-line members their seats.”"

"Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), a big swing vote for Democratic leaders, said Tuesday’s elections should tell Democrats that their “agenda needs to be patterned towards” the economy.

“People need to be saying slow it down and don’t add more to the deficit,” Nelson said. “And what have many of us been talking about? We don’t want to see anything added to the deficit unless there’s cost containment.”

On health care, Nelson said: “Let’s see coverage extended, … but at what cost?”"

But sure, keep telling me that I'm the one wearing blinders.

"The premise of the article is based on the idea that yesterday's election results have some relevancy or predictive power for next years elections. They don't. The results from these states in the past is about as predictive of the following years elections as a coin toss."

Yeah, but all that's required right now (and for the next few months) is the perception that blue dogs are at risk. You're right that this election probably doesn't mean jack, but that's not how conventional wisdom is running with it at the moment. Take a look around the news and punditry. The line isn't "Pelosi is right--the Dems won on Tuesday," it's "Blue dogs scared of 2010."