The gains to be (theoretically) made by Democrats may well be in fairly [Republican] districts, ones that previously elected GOP [and thus will tend to be Blue Dog-oriented Democrats]. - casual_observer

Yes, casual_observer - as you rightly point out, that's an important caveat to my sketchy Blue Dog analysis. Obviously the flavor of any new Democrat is likely to depend on where the open seat is, which I haven't studied or accounted for, among other things. [As an aside, the Blue Dogs might better be called the, um, integration-leery White Male coalition - with a few token exceptions - and their specious claim to 'fiscal conservatism' is blown sky-high by their complicity in draining our treasury and putting it in hock for decades to come, on account of their fool-hardy and contemptible imperialist war-in-the-name-of-peace in Iraq.]

But, in addition, I painted too rosy a picture in my earlier comment about the prospects for neutering the "Bush Dogs" (or at least the larger 48-member Blue Dog coalition) this fall.

I didn't count accurately, because while adding Blue Dogs to the Republican caucus, I neglected to simultaneously subtract them from the Democratic caucus. A basic error of political math that makes a very big difference. This two-for-one impact is where the real power of such caucus defections comes from, in a two-party-only system.

Considering the punishing stranglehold on the nation the current establishment maintains, a backlash of votes for newcomers willing to buck that establishment seems very likely, and thus the 29 open Republican seats may very well turn over to non-Blue Dog Democrats, while the 7 open Democratic seats may hold, and become only more genuinely democratic with better quality candidates, but even so, such an outcome could only neuter the smaller Bush Dog group, not the larger, 48-member Blue Dog coalition. [Although it's worth noting that the Blue Dogs are not a monolith, considering that Mike Arcuri, for one, is on the Rules Committee, and thus clearly answerable to Pelosi.]

So, correcting my math, if every House incumbent holds their seat this fall, and the Democrats hold their 7 open seats and take all 29 open Republican seats, today's majority [ignoring the one open seat that will soon be filled] would go from 235 (D) vs. 199 (R) to 264 (D) vs. 170 (R). In that event, if every one of the 48 Blue Dogs abandoned their caucus next year to vote with every Republican on an issue, the Republicans and Blue Dogs could still outvote the remaining Democrats 218-216. Someone like Arcuri, of course, would be very unlikely to participate in such a unified cross-over, and the power of the Blue Dogs would be very difficult to maintain without lockstep voting in opposition to their own caucus. However, the likelihood of non-Blue Dog Democrats (or sympathetic Independents) winning every open seat in Congress this fall is obviously far from a certainty, considering how districts and the system are rigged. [Cook is apparently estimating a net Democratic increase of 10 seats in the House this fall, though that seems conservative considering the two most recent special election wins for the Democrats; but those who have been carefully analysing and following these races and districts obviously have a far better handle on all of this than me.]

At any rate, while the Blue Dogs may be able to wield the disruptive power of temporary defection from the caucus for a while longer (though I'm not convinced that their public threats aren't often leader-blessed), because they are willing to vote with (thus far, lockstep) Republicans, proving (even if leader-blessed) that they aren't just bluffing, the larger Progressive Caucus of the Democratic Party has at least as much power as the Blue Dogs, if they would unite and actually vote accordingly. In a system set up by the parties for top-down dictates based on pure power, the only way to fight back is with the pure power of numbers, and on this the Progressives should be flexing their muscles at least as much as the Blue/Bush Dogs, on vital matters like the pending, and unspeakably hypocritical, Iraq occupation supplemental.

Congress Members have received thousands of phone calls, and some of them are committing to voting no on Iraq funding. The vote won't happen until next week, so keep the calls coming: Call your Congress Member now at 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote No on the war funding.

.

Pelosi does not have the votes to pass the Rule, a procedural vote that must pass prior to votes on each of the three amendments (1. war money, 2. a nonbinding "timeline goal," re-banning of torture and permanent bases ..snip..

She doesn't have the votes because of Republican opposition to the whole maneuver (which will involve amending a bill that's already passed in order to avoid a vote on the whole package - except for the Rule vote), and because of "blue dog" (right-wing) Democratic outrage over spending some $11 billion on something useful when they want to stay focused on wasting over $100 billion on killing. Democrats who do plan to vote No on the war funding have not threatened to vote No on the Rule. But they should if they want to block this thing.

If Pelosi buys off the blue dogs somehow, progressives could still step in and block the war money by blocking the Rule. There may be some progressive resistance to the Rule anyway, because Lee and Kucinich both want to be permitted to bring up amendments. (Lee's would restrict funding to a withdrawal. Kucinich's would ban the use of funds for attacking Iran, Syria, etc.)

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33308

As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi prepares to implement a strategy that will fund the Iraq war through 2008 and into the first term of the next president, Military Families Speak Out members across the country and on military bases around the world are outraged at this massive betrayal of our loved ones, all of our troops, our families, this nation and the people of Iraq.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33314