CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Blue Dog Coalition

caucus for centrist to conservative members of the Democratic Party

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 18, 2026
Entity authorityQ146953
Source-derived summary

The Blue Dog Coalition is a caucus of moderate and conservative members from the Democratic Party in the United States House of Representatives. The caucus was founded as a group of conservative Democrats in 1995 in response to defeats in the 1994 elections. At its peak in 2009, the Blue Dog Coalition numbered 54 members, accounting for 21% of the entire Democratic caucus. As of 2026, it has 10 members.

In the late 2010s and early 2020s, the coalition became more focused on ideological centrism and constituency-based politics; however, the coalition maintained an emphasis on fiscal responsibility. The Blue Dog Coalition remains the most conservative grouping of Democrats in the House.

Name

The term "Blue Dog Democrat" is credited to Texas representative Pete Geren, a Democrat who later joined the George W. Bush administration. Geren opined that the members had been "choked blue" by "extreme" Democrats on the left. It is related to the political term "Yellow dog Democrat", a reference to Southern Democrats said to be "so loyal they would even vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for any Republican". The term also refers to the "Blue Dog" paintings of Cajun artist George Rodrigue of Lafayette, Louisiana, as the original members of the coalition would regularly meet in the offices of Louisiana representatives Billy Tauzin and Jimmy Hayes, both of whom later joined the Republican Party – both also had Rodrigue's paintings on their walls.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Blue Dog Coalition” as caucus for centrist to conservative members of the Democratic Party. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1995, 1994, 2009, 2026—that can be checked directly. The linked authority record independently contributes the date 1995. The account is most persuasive where Blue, Coalition and caucus can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as caucus for centrist to conservative members of the Democratic Party. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 18, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q146953. None of the 2 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1995, 1994, 2009 and 2026.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Blue Dog Coalition”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Blue Dog Coalition primary sources, Blue Dog Coalition archive and Blue research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Blue Dog Coalition”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Blue Dog Coalition” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.