I don’t know that these things are precisely defined, but both expressions usually refer to Southerners. “Yellow dog” refers to the era of iron-fisted one-party rule. “Blue dog” refers primarily to Southern politicians who tried to stay in the Democrat party after they had to compete for votes and were saddled with an unrecognizable national party led by the likes of McGovern — weak on defense, soft on communism, crime, drugs, pornography, etc. and of course pro-abortion. The party went downhill from there and the blue dogs met their fate. I would suggest that is the association.

Fair enough about Koch. Doesn’t change the thrust of the comment though. Same for blue dogs. I didn’t realise the term was only coined in ‘94. I seem to remember it being used earlier than that.

But yellow dog Dems are voters so loyal to the party, it was said they would vote for a yellow dog if it ran as a Democrat. The term dates from the 19th century. It may have inspired the blue dog term, but isn’t otherwise related to it.

I’m afraid I have to agree here; the Blue Dogs have been nearly extinct since the 2010 “wave” when most of them were voted out and replaced by Tea Partiers.

The Kochs are mostly libertarians. They’re no neocons by any stretch. Charles Koch was clear about the rationale for his comment that Bill Clinton was “in some ways” better than George W. Bush: “As far as the growth of government, the increase in spending, it was 2½ times under Bush that it was under Clinton,” he said.

The blue dogs (formerly known as yellow dogs) did not take over anything; they went extinct as the national party lurched leftward.

Modern roots, obviously.

“Sanders is attempting to return the party somewhat to it’s [sic] roots”

With respect, LOL. Poor Andy Jackson is spinning in his grave. He couldn’t imagine a weasel like Sanders.

Should be “…the only Democrat that might propel Trump…”

Martin, basically the Clintons are fake progressives. I don’t know where you are, but think third way Tony Blair, only far worse. The charge that both are pathological lairs would appear to have a lot going for it. Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called “No One Left to Lie To” in 1999 laying out the evidence quite convincingly.

They are what used to be called blue-dog Democrats, from the right wing of the party, and were enabled by the conscious rightward move of the party in response to Reagan, so much so that the blue dogs took over and the term doesn’t hold much meaning any longer. Before that they probably would have become moderate Republicans, which is where Hillary started.

Hillary has particularly pissed off progressives, because she is even more neocon in her foreign policy than Bill was, completely pandering to Israel and the military-industrial complex that fund her. One of the Koch brothers recently said he could probably live with Hillary as president and this is the reason why. Because she and Bill have spent their careers triangulating, she has never shown on just what principles she would make a stand. There appear to be none, hence her trustworthiness is near zero.

There are two ironies of a Clinton/Trump contest. One is that Trump is the one Republican Hillary might easily beat. The other is that Hillary might be the only Democrat that Trump might propel Trump into the White House.

Sanders is attempting to return the party somewhat to it’s roots and unfortunately for Hillary, he’s chosen a time to do it when people seem to be most receptive, while she got into the race promising more of the same. Here’s an article that puts the Democrat’s dilemma pretty well.

https://ourfuture.org/20160523/what-does-bernie-want

Thanks Lee. 🙂