Seven of the 15 members expected to join the Blue Dogs this year, including Rep. Abigail Spanberger, are departing after a heated disagreement over a potential name change for the moderate bloc.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

“The Blue Dogs have never prioritized having a large coalition — our members look to have a focused, effective group that can influence the Congress regardless of numbers,” Andy LaVigne, the group’s executive director, said in a statement. “With a narrow majority governing the House, even a smaller group of members focused on getting things done for the American people on these issues can and will play a vital role.”

The group will still have influence in this Congress’ historically small GOP majority, where four Democrats willing to side with Republicans could sway a floor vote. But the Blue Dogs’ shakeup raises glaring questions about their future at a critical time. The centrist coalition sought to increase its sway in recent years, building an increasingly diverse cast of Democrats — several of whom later led the failed push to orient the group away from its socially conservative, geographically limited past.

Returning Blue Dogs insisted that not all the departures were a result of the private tiff over the proposed name change, citing the effect of factors such as departing members’ potential ambitions for statewide office. In addition, the group’s size has historically always shrunk after a tough election, with its ranks often replenished when Democrats seize back power. Blue Dogs began the 2022 cycle with 19 members, only 13 of whom remain in office after the midterms.

Yet that very pattern of shrinking partly fueled the group’s debate over rebranding. With some members seeking to prioritize recruitment as the 118th Congress began, the coalition tapped Democratic polling firm Impact Research to convene one-on-one conversations with fellow party moderates about the group’s direction and image.

The interviews revealed that some felt concerned about the group’s reputation, according to multiple people familiar with the research, which was presented to the Blue Dogs during a meeting earlier this month. Impact found that some lawmakers still held outdated conceptions of the Blue Dogs, whose ranks have included the party’s last lingering opponents of same-sex marriage and abortion rights — on top of its origins from the so-called Dixiecrats, white southern Democrats who supported segregation.

Many Blue Dogs have routinely dismissed that criticism, citing an uptick in generational, geographical and racial diversity in recent terms.

“It seems like it’s been a pretty diverse group of people over the last four years. I’m not thinking of 30 years ago. I don’t really entertain that type of critique,” said one Blue Dog Democrat who opposed the name change, speaking on condition of anonymity, as did most others interviewed.

This centrist added that a majority of the remaining members weren’t trying to “change the Blue Dog caucus” by increasing its muscle with more members: “We’re not trying to recruit and become, like, the center of gravity.”

Internal reformers pushed the name Common Sense Coalition. That included Spanberger and Sherrill, the last two women in the group, who were among those advocating for a rebrand.

Those opposed included Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) as well as longer-serving members who had first joined the group in the 1990s, like Reps. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) and Mike Thompson (D-Calif.). At least one member, Gottheimer, took issue with the lack of quantitative data during the closed-door Impact Research presentation, since its work largely involved one-on-one conversations with members.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer is one lawmaker who took issue with the lack of quantitative data during the closed-door Impact Research presentation, since its work largely involved one-on-one conversations with members.