Talk:Blue Dog Coalition/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early comments

Is this really a formal organization of Democrats, or is this just an expression used to describe Democrats of this type? [unsigned comment by Kurtbw 09:49, 22 May 2004 (UTC)] Aubret Bitoni There is a Blue Dog Caucus in the US Congress. [unsigned comment by Pimpalicious 12:50, 23 June 2004 (UTC)]

Could someone divide the Blue Dog Caucus into Senators and Representatives? Thanks. [unsigned comment by 67.170.67.92 02:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)]

    -- According to their website (and the current first sentence of this article), the Blue Dog Coalition is an organization of the House of Representatives, and so would not contain any Senators.

I'm removing the claim that they are "mostly from the U.S. Southern states". According to the list on this page, 15 of the 35 are from the south, which is not "most", although a plurality are from the south. The breakdown by region is:

• South - 15 (Alabama 1, Arkansas 2, Florida 1, Georgia 3, Kentucky 1, Louisiana 1, Mississippi 1, North Carolina 1, Tennessee 4)
• West - 11 (California 8, Colorado 1, Hawaii 1, Utah 1)
• Midwest and Great Plains - 7 (Iowa 1, Kansas 1, Minnesota 1, North Dakota 1, Oklahoma 1, Pennsylvania 1, South Dakota 1)
• Northeast - 2 (Maine 1, New York 1)

--Delirium 08:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section that likens Blue Dogs to old Democrats. There is a wide variety in attitude toward fiscal issues, and opposition to desegregation and civil rights legislation are not characteristics of Blue Dogs either, like they were for southern Democrats. This section also contained the same inaccuracy as the one cited above that most of the Blue Dog Caucus is from the South. Joydawg 00:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes

I added Melissa Beans (IL-08) and Jim Marshall (GA-03) to the list of current members and accordingly adjusted the number of members to 37, which is the number of members listed on the Blue Dogs' official website. Though I'm not sure about Marshall, Bean joined around the beginning of 2006 according to her office, which I just finished working in for a few months. This IS an actual working coalition that has regular meetings and a platform. The opening sentence of this article calling them social conservatives is correct in that the majority of the members are, but misleading in that the group does not advocate a platform of conservatism on social issues. Instead, they simply eschew official stands on social issues and concentrate on advocating governmental and fiscal responsibility.

Well, he was elected in 2002, so I presume his membership stems from that year, or the year in which he was inaugurated.

He's one of the most conservative Democratic members of the House of Representatives, so I would assume he was admitted to the caucus upon election, although I could be mistaken.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the assertion that Al Gore's defeat in Tennessee cost him the election, as a) many in the nation believe that he was the legitimate winner in 2000, and b) regardless of this, no one state alone can "cost" any presidential nominee an election. The loss of Tennesse was embarrassing for the Veep, but no more important to the result than Missouri (also a Bush win, also 11 electoral votes) or Indiana w/12. Best not to raise the issue at all, right? -- PVenkman

Contradiction of Name

I don't know enough about this term to really know what the true story is, but one of the two reasons given for why they are called "Blue Dog" democrats has got to be wrong. Somebody should fix this. 216.165.2.125

We are merely reporting the possible sources. Terms like these generally have multiple claims to parentage. Rkevins82 20:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The explanation now makes it sound like there's only one, when it's a clear contrast to the "yellow dog" Democrats. They wouldn't be named "blue dogs" without the yellows, even if it does refer to a painting, too. Calbaer 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Jane Harman

The article opens by contending that "Blue Dog Democrats are social and economic conservatives and centrists".

Oh really? What about Jane Harman? My impression of Jane Harman is that she is strongly preoccupied with foreign policy, military, and security issues, especially everything to do with Israels' security needs as perceived by the foreign policy right wing both here and in Israel. Her conservative credentials have been forged by her staunchly hawkish foreign policy and security stances, particularly her support of the Iraq war, for the Patriot Act, and for a generally belligerent foreign policy in the Middle East.

Has anyone noticed her speechifying against abortion or gay marriage, or advocating the dismantling of Social Security? Does she even care one way or the other regarding the domestic social and economic priorities associated with the American right? If so, that's certainly not what she's known for. She is a foreign policy conservative (if hawkishness imples conservatism). Therefore the opening sentence of this article is misleading.

I'm not sure how the above is relevant. This link states that she's "known for her centrist politics," consistent with the sentence in question. Calbaer 21:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not the word 'centrist' I object to; it's the phrase 'social and economic'. The sentence in question states that Blue Dog Democrats are "social and economic" conservatives and centrists - i.e., they take (for Democrats) relatively conservative postions on social and economic issues. No, she doesn't. For a Democrat, she's mainstream on social and economic issues. She takes right-of-center positions on foreign policy issues, at least on the Middle East. That's what makes her "centrist" (i.e., right of the Democratic mainstream), according to your (surely objective) source. Therefore, the phrase "social and economic" is inaccurate. If you still don't understand at this point, I give up. I don't really care that much.

I never said the source was "objective," but it is verifiable, and you aren't providing verifiable evidence of your POV. Calbaer 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Harman, unlike the other Blue Dogs, does not represent a district with a large Republican presence. Her district on the West Side of Los Angeles is about as Republican as Pelosi's district. In the neighborhood she lives in, Venice, Kerry got 80% of the votes in the 2004 presidential election, and George W. Bush recieved fewer votes than Michael Badnarik. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.48.179 (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree with the objection above. The following sentence was simply factually wrong: "Democrats who identify with the Blue Dogs, on the other hand, tend to be social conservatives, but have differing positions on economic issues ranging from fiscal conservatism to economic populism." Every relevant source in the links already provided here directly contradicts this. Every one lists fiscal conservativism as their fundamental belief. The Blue Dogs own official site seems to back this up. Every one shows some evidence of a pro-business or economically conservative bent. None supports the claim of social conservatism. The group's press releases are on their website, and it can be seen that they have never taken a position on any of these social issues. And the voting records don't support that statement--many of these are social liberals. Some quotes from the reference links:

"In the 106th Congress, the Blue Dogs are 30 fiscally conservative House Democrats who tend to vote together as a coalition on budgetary and economic issues. " -Illona Nickels C-Span

"The Blue Dog Coalition was founded in 1994 to provide a unified voice for moderate members of the Democratic Party in the US House of Representatives, particularly on economic issues." -Deborah White, under the heading "United on Fiscal Responsibility".

'The Coalition has been particularly active on fiscal issues, relentlessly pursuing a balanced budget and then protecting that achievement from politically popular "raids" on the budget. Past Coalition budgets have won the endorsement of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition and multiple newspaper and magazine editorials. As one column pointed out, the Blue Dogs have proven that "common sense, conservative economics and compassion aren't necessarily mutually exclusive."' - Oficial website on congressional homepaage of Co-Chair Mike Ross.

I've taken that sentence out and given the whole thing a bit more context and I hope made the distinctions a bit clearer. Though I think I kept everything else that was there in there in some form. Acerimusdux 09:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph was biased

a minimal observance of npov should prevent openings like this, which reads like it was written by representatives of the subject of the article:

Blue Dog Democrats are a group of 44 conservative to moderate Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives. [1] The Blue Dogs are a coalition of like-minded Democrats whose primary mission is to promote fiscally responsible budget reforms and accountability for taxpayer dollars. Many members hail from conservative-leaning districts, where liberal Democrats and liberal values are a decided minority. Therefore, the Democratic Party has become more supportive of Blue Dog candidates in recent times. This was especially true in the 2006 election, when Blue Dog candidates such as Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth were elected in conservative-leaning districts, ending years of Republican dominance in these districts.

So, non-blue dogs are fiscally irresponsible, unaccountable. Not to mention being "a decided minority" whatever that means. Attempting an edit. Bacrito 13:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Blue Dog Democrat → Blue Dog Coalition — It seems to me the most appropriate title, as it is the official name of the group and it is in line with other articles as New Democrat Coalition. —Checco 18:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support for the reasons stated above. --Checco 18:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support, rather obviously, yeah. —Nightstallion 11:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal

I removed the external link to the "FAQ" [1] that has also been removed by a congressional IP multiple times in the past couple of days. I don't know their reason (whether its a conflict of interest or not), but I removed it because it is redundant. If you notice, the link is already being used as a source in the article (currently #4). We don't need to then list it again. Although, the inline reference could use updating with the author, title, date, etc. But that's a minor point really. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 21:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: SIDE BAR TO : BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS

08-26-08

DEAR READERS-

WELL PUT NEWS STORY. MANY OF US ARE PRO-LIFE AND SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES. THIS GIVE PEOPLE A UNDERSTANDING OF WHO WE ARE.

WITH RESPECT,

ROBERT JONES A BLUE DOG DEMOCRAT

see also www.bluedogdemocrats.us/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.142.126.39 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

progressive in quotes?

Can anyone give a valid reason why in the section heading, "Blue Dog Democrats vs "Progressive" Democrats", that the word "progressive" is in quotes? 68.73.84.231 (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I renamed the section to refer to the left wing of the Democratic Party. I think part of the problem may be the way that use of the words "liberal" and "progressive" has itself become politicized. -- Shunpiker (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Boll Weevils

The Blue Dogs are the political descendants of a now defunct Southern Democratic group known as the Boll Weevils The Boll weevils, in turn, may be considered the descendants of the "states' rights" Democrats of the 1940's through 60's.

Linking Blue Dogs to Boll Weevils to State's Rights is inaccurate and misleading. Blue Dogs are fiscal conservatives, with no link to state's rights, segregation. I can't even find a direct link to the Boll Weevil members, who seemed to have retired by the time the Blue Dogs were formed. I'd like to remove both of these sentences.

Rabbi-m (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This article needs some work, and you identify a section that wants for references. However, the link between Blue Dogs and Boll Weevils is not, as I understand it, controversial. I added a reference to a political glossary that defines both "Boll Weevils" and "Blue Dog Democrats" in terms pretty close to what the article uses. A couple of excerpts:

The Blue Dog Democrat group can be seen as descendants of the boll weevils, conservative, traditional Democrats who occasionally have more in common with moderate Republicans than they do with the northern, more liberal wing of their own party.

As for "Boll Weevils":

These southern politicians are the direct descendants of a time when the Democratic Party dominated the south of the United States. These conservatives tended to oppose "big-government" and champion states' rights.

Incidentally -- and this should find it's way into the article -- there are congresspeople like Charles Stenholm who were both Boll Weevils and Blue Dogs.

You make a good point that there are vital differences between Blue Dogs and the Dixiecrats of yore. This is worth spelling out, although I think it can be done without effacing the fact that there is also continuity in the tradition of Southern Democrats. --Shunpiker (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "can be seen as" in the source you quote indicates that it is subjective opinion and not a statement of fact. Unless the subjective opinion can be referenced to an expert in the field, it should be removed. More generally, just because two groups 1) exhibit superficial similarities, and 2) are separated in time, does not mean that one is descended from the other. 68.73.84.231 (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that there's an overlap in membership, the similarity is not superficial, nor are the two groups separated in time. But don't take my word for it. The comparison between the Boll Weevils and the Blue Dogs does not hang on one awkwardly worded sentence in a single source. It is extremely common:

Blue Dogs are similar to the former coalition of southern Democrats derisively called the Boll Weevils, whose heyday was in the 1980s when they defected from the Democratic Party to support many of President Ronald Reagan's conservative policies. (Torn and Frayed: Congressional Norms and Party Switching in an Era of Reform, Judd Choate, 2003, pp. 100)

The successor to the "Boll Weevils" of the 1980s was the so-called Blue Dog Democrats. (Parties, Rules, and the Evolution of Congressional Budgeting, Lance T. LeLoup, 2005, pp. 185)

The Republicans were joined by eight Democrats, some of them members of the fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" caucus, the 1990s version of the Boll Weevils. (Buck Wild: How Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government, Stephen Slivinski, 2006, pp. 59)

The conservative Democrats have recently dropped their name "Boll Weevil," and have taken on the tag "Blue Dog Democrat." (Encyclopedia of American Parties, Campaigns, and Elections, William C. Binning et al, 1999, pp. 307)

If you can find a source arguing that the Boll Weevils are irrelevant to the Blue Dogs, I'm not opposed to including it as a minority view. --Shunpiker (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Map Update

The map indicating which districts are controlled by members of the Blue Dog Coalition needs to be updated to include Pennsylvania's 4th and 10th districts, whom are represented by Jason Altmire and Christopher Carney, respectively. Both individuals are listed as members, but neither of their districts are included on the list. I'd do it myself, but I am unable to edit svg documents on my computer.72.81.120.38 (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it appears that the the map correctly represents PA dist. 10, but it still doesn't show dist. 4. In addition, PA dist 17 (Tim Holden) should also be included (for verification, see list of coalition members in this article, as well as the home page of Holden's website http://www.holden.house.gov/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrollerus01 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I was reading the article today (7/21/09) and I noticed that the map does not include district 28 in Texas, tghough Henry Cuellar is listed as a member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.119.130 (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I updated the map to include the Pennsylvania 4th an 17th and the Texas 28th as requested. Please let me know if there are other changes that should be made. --skew-t (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Number of members

There are differing numbers of members provided by sources. For example, here it states 51, whereas here, here, and a count of the list here all indicate 52. To me it appears that the one instance of 51 is a figure that needs to be updated. Any definitive sources on a recent change from 52 to 51? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Creation?

The paragraph on the formation of the Blue Dog Coalition is strange: "The Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1994 during the 104th Congress to give more conservative members from the Democratic party a unified voice after the Democrats' loss of Congress in 1994." Is it fairly safe to say that they were formed in 1995? Since, after all, there were only two months left in 1994 after the loss of Congress, and the 104th Congress didn't even start until January 1995... I'm going to go ahead and change it, as it's kind of obvious that it has to mean '95. 76.105.147.25 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

This is my first-ever wikipedia post, so I apologize if I'm out of line, but it seems like the criticism section really needs work. The first assertion lacks a citation, the second is fine but not really strong on its own, and the third links to a website called Politicular, which appears to be a conservative-leaning blog of some sort. I am not seeing much in the way of substantiation.

This is not to crap on anyone's hard work - I came to this page to learn more about a coalition I knew far too little about and appreciate what everyone has done here - but one can often learn the most of a movement from its critics and this section is sorely lacking in meaningful critique. All this tells me is that Hannity et al don't think that these guys are conservative enough (consider my mind blown) and that some guy on the internet thinks that the Tea Party is rhetorically superseding the Blue Dog Coalition... -Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.197.232 (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Explain this to a Brit of little brain please

The first line says they're moderates, the second says they're conservative. can't explain that Which is correct? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Current Membership -- 112th Congress, 2012

Rep. Joe Donnelly is "retiring" from the House because he is the Democrat candidate for an open U.S. Senate seat from Indiana.99.111.238.7 (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

113th Congress section needs expansion

The two Blue Dog Democrats who lost seats are not mentioned by name. It would appear this is a reference to the 12th and 17th districts? Should be pointed out, in that case, that both Blue Dog incumbents lost in the Democratic Primary, not the general election, and that only one of the "more liberal" challengers won a seat in the general election, and in a district intentionally created to be a safe Democratic district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.82.135 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the current 113th Blue Dog Coalition map is missing a highlight on Arizona's 2nd congressional district. ~GMH talk to me 05:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blue Dog Coalition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140914024359/http://www.openleft.com/diary/10905/ to http://www.openleft.com/diary/10905/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Historical perspective---PLEASE

Can we please get this "Coalition" in context; the term Blue Dog Democrat has been around for probably 100 years! This coalition is a recent, and minor footnote. --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blue Dog Coalition/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 20:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

As this has outstanding cleanup tags, an over-short lead, and was nominated by an editor who hasn't yet worked on the article, I'm closing this with a result of "not listed". Thanks to everybody who's worked on it--I hope it does get to GA at some point! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Prior to the 1990's, the term used was Yellow-Dog, not blue-dog. It came from the southern voters who were said to blindly vote Democrat no matter if the Democrats ran a mangy old yellow dog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.142.177.157 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Real Historical Perspective Please!

Prior to the 1990's, the term used was Yellow-Dog, not blue-dog. It came from the southern voters who were said to blindly vote Democrat no matter if the Democrats ran a mangy old yellow dog. Blue-dog is an attempt at historical revisionism, just like trying to change the party name to democratic when it has been Democrat for centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.142.177.157 (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. The blue dogs are far from what would be considered centre left when compared to how other parties have been categorised on Wikipedia. CommunistHipster (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blue Dog Coalition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120712181901/http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-25/politics/politics_obamacare-word-debate_1_health-reform-law-health-care-affordable-care-act?_s=PM%3APOLITICS to http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-25/politics/politics_obamacare-word-debate_1_health-reform-law-health-care-affordable-care-act?_s=PM%3APOLITICS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140428012924/http://santarosademocrats.com/post/2011/06/27/Republicans-and-Blue-Dogs-Go-After-Social-Security-Under-the-Radar.aspx to http://santarosademocrats.com/post/2011/06/27/Republicans-and-Blue-Dogs-Go-After-Social-Security-Under-the-Radar.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116112925/http://bluedog.schrader.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=366954%2F to http://bluedog.schrader.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=366954%2F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Center-left?

Oh, please. Anyone knows that the Blue Dogs aren't center-left (or centrist, either). Center-left would refer to social democracy, and progressive liberalism is centrist (or perhaps slightly left of center). This wiki needs to care less about the media consensus and more about accuracy. Jerrytheman9 (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The Wikipedia ideology section for "Conservative democrat" (which the Blue dog caucus is described as being comprised of) states "The modern view of a conservative Democrat is a Democrat who is fiscally conservative, with a moderate or conservative foreign policy, but socially liberal, moderate, or conservative." In addition the positions affiliated with Centre-left as described by it's wikipedia page are as follows: social democracy, social liberalism, democratic socialism, and green politics. None of which appear in the political positions infobox. I would support changing the position to Centre to Centre-right or just simply Centre-right.2600:8806:6400:1EE0:D2C:DB25:14BD:7913 (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Ben Nelson

The Overview includes several "recent" Senators that are informally associated with the Blue Dogs. Among them is former Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), who left the Senate in 2013. Is that recent enough to still be included? Bear in mind that he can easily be confused with incumbent Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), who is not affiliated with the Blue Dogs afaik (that confusion happened to me). Moismyname (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to change the wording to "current Senators" and remove Nelson. I'm also going to request citation for the remaining three. Alexander Levian (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Political Position

The current position has the Blue Dog Coalition listed as Centre-left to Centre-right. The source for centre-left requires an account to access, so I have no way to verify it. I have also seen no other sources describing this group as centre-left. I propose moving the position from that to this--> Centre to Center-right. ~HapHaxion (talk). 11 Dec 2016.

Wikipedia:PAYWALL indicates that paywalls are no reason to reject reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 09:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, what about sources which can only be accessed by politicians or people who work for an political organization or in a politically related field? Are sources which can not be confirmed viable, because in any other academic setting they would be viewed as unreliable at best, and lacking integrity at worst.The point is that this "source" is imaginary. It CANNOT be verified and should be removed. Additionally, just because you have a right wing economic viewpoint does not mean you get to distort a Wikipedia page just to suit your right wing agenda. I challenge you to find an additional source which claims that the Blue Dog Coalition falls within what is considered to be center-left ideology. You most certainty will not find one, including on The Blue Dog Coalitions website. Conversely, there are several sources which refer to the coalition as being either centrist or center-right. LandonWeberMSU(talk). 14 Dec 2018. —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Ok Toa Nidhiki05, those sources never mentioned that the blue dogs are center-left. Learn how to read!

I believe we should remove any mention of the Blue Dog's having an ideology if we cannot find a consensus on this issue. If I do not get any response on this with evidence from a source that can be accessed by the general public (with or without a paywall), I will edit the page and remove the ideology description. LandonWeberMSU(talk). 16 Feb 2019.

They do say it. I would suggest that you stop insulting me, especially when your claims are false. Toa Nidhiki05 17:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05 I read through the articles for twenty minutes and the descriptions which are used refer to the blue dog coalition as being either "centrists" or as "conservatives". Conservatism or centrism is not center-left. The terms centrist and center-left are actually contradictory to each other. By the way, I'm loving the poorly disguised threats. LandonWeberMSU(talk). 27 Feb 2019.

Toa Nidhiki05, Her are all of the descriptors of the Blue Dogs I was able to track down from these articles which you lazily pulled as evidence for your position that the Blue Dog Coalition is center left. 

Source 1-NPR Interview with Former Congressman and Chair of the Blue Dog Coalition (D-UT) Jim Matheson

1. "The Blue Dogs are a group of CONSERVATIVE Democrats in the House of Representatives"- (D-UT)-Jim Matheson-Former Chair of the Blue Dog Democrats (Source 1/Paragraph 3)

2. "A lot of these seats that these CONSERVATIVE Democrats picked up were formerly moderate Republicans" -Andrea Seabrook (Source 1/Paragraph 9)

3."How do you see Blue Dogs, MODERATE to CONSERVATIVE, pro-defense, pro-fiscal conservatism, these Democrats....etc"- Andrea Seabrook (Source 1/Paragraph 11)

Source 2-LA Times OPINION Piece (Which is not even a valid source by the way/actual article which would require that it reflect the view of the LA Times editorial board.)

1. "The little-examined flip side to this week's Republican victories is that they swept out many of the last remaining "blue dog" Democrats in the Senate – the CENTRISTS from conservative-leaning states who leavened a caucus dominated by urban liberals."-Doyle McManus in his opinion piece entitled "Another result of Tuesday's election: fewer 'Blue Dog' Democrats" (Source 2/Paragraph 2)

Source 3-Elections A to Z Published by Sage

1. "The Blue Dog Coalition of CENTRIST and CONSERVATIVE House Democrats was formed in the wake of the party's sweeping loses in the 1994 midterm elections..." -Elections A to Z

2."That marginalization led some political scientists to dismiss the CONSERVATIVE coalition as a remnant of an era when the south was largely a one party Democratic monolith." -Elections A-Z

Toa Nidhiki05, your sources suck at supporting your argument. Try to give me somthing which actually proves your point, or that at least is not completely contradicting what you are saying.

P.S-I will repeat my previous statement, just to allow my past words to properly sink in. If I do not get any response on this with evidence from a source that can be accessed by the general public (with or without a paywall), I will edit the page and remove the ideology description.

LandonWeberMSU(talk). 27 Feb 2019.

Read WP:PAYWALL and get back to me, bro. You have no idea what you are talking about. Toa Nidhiki05 12:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, it is obvious you are trying to force a consensus that the Blue Dog Coalition is Center-Left which does not exist (see objections above which litter this talk page) for the editors of this page. Therefore, on those ground alone I believe it would be best that the ideology listing for the Blue dog Coalition be removed in its entirety. Removing the ideological description would restore a consensus, which does not presently exist.

LandonWeberMSU(talk). 4 Mar 2019.

Toa Nidhiki05, as we are at an impasse on this issue I have asked for a third opinion ("WP:3").

LandonWeberMSU(talk). 4 Mar 2019.   —Preceding undated comment added 06:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC) 

Since you seem to not understand Wikipedia policy, here are two more that call them center-left. I assume you’ll apologize and move on now. Toa Nidhiki05 13:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Dispute over the Classification of the Blue Dog Coalition as having a center-left to center- right ideology.):

Toa Nidhiki05 seems to have provided satisfactory sources meeting all criteria asked of him. I see no reason why the Blue Dogs should not be listed as Center-left to Center-right as the article currently stands. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, thank you for providing the additional sources. These sources from Politico specifically list the Blue Dog's as "a group of center-left Democrats" and can still be accessed, so I am satisfied with them (though I do not agree with the authors position). I consider the matter closed, and I will be adding these sources to the article if you have not already done so. LandonWeberMSU(talk). 20 Mar 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.177.106 (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism by User talk:Toa Nidhiki05

This user is a self proclaimed conservative and cannot accept facts about political organisations he does not like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxblanco (talk • contribs) 13:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

You (guessing you are at least one of the IPs involved here as well) have repeatedly removed reliable sources and long-standing content and replaced it with inaccurate material. I’ve opened up a request for page protection to stop this for the time being, but I would highly advise you to cease your disruptive editing here. Toa Nidhiki05 13:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Changed political position to ‘center to center-right’

I changed the position from “center-left to center-right” to “center to center-right.” I believe this is more accurate, because the New Democratic Coalition is described as “center to center-left.” It does not make sense to say that the more left Blue Dog Democrats are at about the same position as the more left New Democrats. The Blue Dogs are also understood to be more centrist/conservative, not more on the progressive side, which center-left would imply. JoeSmoe2828 (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

References