Blue Dog Democrat Dennis Moore (KS-03) is retiring. Naturally, Chuck Todd thinks this is apocalyptic for Democrats:
The Moore retirement is one that should have some House Dem leaders nervous (as well as the WH), the party can’t afford more like Moore.
One reason why 2010 doesn’t look like 1994 is that Dems haven’t had many retirements. GOPers might not have won ’94 w/o open seats.
I’d actually be very curious to see a coherent argument for how having fewer seats in the House, but a smaller number of Blue Dogs, is bad news for leadership and the White House. Blue Dogs have opposed the leadership and the WH about as much as Republicans have. Or, more precisely, Blue Dogs have been more effective than Republicans have been in their opposition. Republican opposition hasn’t caused legislation to change one bit, while Blue Dog obstructionism has forced Democratic legislation to the right. What, exactly, do the Blue Dogs add when the size of their caucus is only used as a lever to push Congress to the right?