During the Bush Years, one wing of the Democratic Party received heavy criticism from the progressive netroots for bowing into Republican pressure on foreign affairs and civil liberties. The Blue Dogs, later nicknamed the Bush Dogs by progressives, tend to be conservative Democrats representing rural Western and Southern districts, with some exceptions like Congresswoman Bean of Illinois. Although they technically unite around fiscal responsibility, they was a high amount of correlation in the eyes of progressives between the Blue Dogs and support for the most egregious of Bush's policies. Today, National Journal notes that Blue Dogs just come from a different type of district than the rest of their caucus.

Nearly half of the fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, for instance, represent districts from the low-minority, low-education sector, with another quarter of them representing districts from the high-minority, low-education group. And 30 of the 48 House Democrats in districts that Republican presidential nominee John McCain carried in 2008 hail from the low-minority, low-education quadrant. The most-vulnerable Democrats represent these low-low districts.

In the past, I've always kept myself open to finding libertarian-leaning Democrats among the Blue Dogs and the like. It's certainly possible to imagine a more fiscally conservative Southern or Western Democrats with strong pro-2nd Amendment tendencies also taking a more anti-government perspective on civil liberties. But the reality is far different. Of the entire Blue Dog caucus, only three members, Congresswoman Harman of California, Congressman Thompson of California and Congressman Michaud of Maine, voted with us on both Afghanistan and the Patriot Act.

That's not to say that other members from so-called "low-low" districts didn't vote with us. In fact, fourteen members (Including Michaud) from low-minority, low-education districts voted with us. But they don't come from the Blue Dog wing of the party. There are 66 Democrats from these districts, so 14 members is just over 20%. But when you consider that around 27 members from these districts are Blue Dogs, the math is that around a third of non-Blue Dog Democratic members from these types of districts vote our way. That's a pretty impressive. For comparison, only 10 members of the 62 from districts with high-minority, low-education voted our way, or 16%. If you take out the Blue Dogs, it's 10 of about 48, or 20%. In the high-high quadrant, Democrats hold 84 seats and 30 of them voted with us, about 35%. And among the high education, low minority, around 17% voted with us, 13 out of 35.

It probably doesn't come as a surprise, but only one Democrat from a district that voted for McCain joined us, Congressman Perriello of Virginia. For most Democratic members, the knowledge that their district supported McCain seems to be a strong reason for them to give some support for these flawed policies. But on the other side of the aisle, no Republicans from Obama districts joined with us.

Among the four quadrants, support for our positions is rather similar in three of the four and highest in the high-high category. The percentages get better when you exclude Blue Dogs. I've focused on them first, but I hope to look at the other groups in the Democratic Caucus in future posts.