Matthew Yglesias » The Trust Gap

Oct 30th, 2009 at 10:01 am

The Trust Gap

Electorally vulnerable Democrats may have something to gain from the perception of triangulating away from their party leadership, but this sort of result tends not to support the idea that breaking with congressional Democrats to join congressional Republicans in a filibuster of Obama’s signature health initiatives would be a political winner.

Comments
26

Filed under: Health Care, Public Opinion,

26 Responses to “The Trust Gap”

Christopher Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Who are you talking about, though? Lieberman doesn’t care, Landrieu is vulnerable, Bayh has a financial conflict of interest, and Ben Nelson is an insurance executive by trade. Who’s left?
David A Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:19 am
But these national polls mean exactly zero to Senators, who care how these issues poll in their home state. Democratic senators in red states are likely looking at a different polling picture.
Campesino Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:19 am
One more time.

This is a national poll. If you ask these same questions in the states and districts that senators and congressmen represent you will give different results than this and the senators and congressmen will act accordingly
soullite Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:48 am
You know, it must be fun to just assert that things “MUST BE DIFFERENT!!!!” but people have actually polled the states of the people we’re talking about here. You’re just too busy asserting blatant falsehoods to look them up.

if you’re going to pull a “YOU DON’T UNDERSTANd POLITICS!” argument, it would help if polling didn’t indicate that the public in. Maine supports it. Indiana supports it. Connecticut supports it. Arkansas supports it. North Dakota and Louisiana don’t appear to have individual polls.

And your argument ignores the fact that, in most states, right wing voters alone aren’t going to win it for Democrats. Right now, the base has no reason to lift any finger at all for most of these people, including the finger needed to press a button or pull a lever in a voting booth.
soullite Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Lets get real here, the only voters who will allow the “Public Option” question to determine their vote are those favorable to the public option. Most other people either don’t really care that much, or are likely to base their votes on other issues altogether.

So pander to right wingers on an issue they don’t really care about, and piss in the faces of your base on an issue where they really truly do care about. I fail to see how that will be a realistic electoral strategy, and quite a few red state dems are in serious trouble next cycle.
DTM Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Not only do you have to look at individual states and districts, you have to look specifically at the marginal voters in the relevant constituency.

That said, there is no way actually handing a loss on the final vote to the President and the party is good for anyone not a Republican. So the predictable result is that some individual Senators and Reps will make a big show of not just going along, and some may well vote against the bill in one way or another, but they will make darn sure that in the end the bill passes.
Opie Curious Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 11:28 am
#5 is very, very right.
Walker Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 11:30 am

This is a national poll. If you ask these same questions in the states and districts that senators and congressmen represent you will give different results than this and the senators and congressmen will act accordingly

For that we have the latest polls for Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. We see the same thing.
Ray in Seattle Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 11:44 am
I’m not so good at political thinking but I find it ironic that Obama has more creds than the congress – while Obama basically gave up on the public option while the congress seems to have brought it back to life.

I think maybe he’s still in his “can do no wrong” bubble.
BruceMcF Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 11:50 am
We also have polls from Connecticut, where “its a red state where the Public Option is not as popular” does not seem to apply.
Poptarts Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
We also have polls from Connecticut, where “its a red state where the Public Option is not as popular” does not seem to apply.

Yeah the public option is popular in Connecticut.
colby Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
“I’m not so good at political thinking”

Or facts, apparently- Obama’s never given up on the PO, no matter how many little “basically”s you throw in there to CYA.

Soullite and DTM are a little more than half right. For most of these guys, the politics really is the same at home as it is nationally. Ben Nelson is a notable exception, but he’s the only one I’ve seen. Don’t paint with too broad a brush.

But I think it’d be a fair argument that those centrist Dems are walking that fine line right now. They’re triangulating away, sure, but they haven’t joined the filibuster yet. I’m not sure I buy that; they still CAN join the filibuster. But if they don’t, then in the end they’ve probably played this just about right.
Sam Woods Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
That high number on the right is pretty much a realization of the right’s distrust of Republicans, not the middle’s. 40% of the country identify as conservatives, while 20% identify as Republicans. The middle may indeed be a winner in that sense for some Dems on the hot seat.
Ray in Seattle Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Colby: “Or facts, apparently”

That’s why I cast it and qualified it as my opinion. But Obama did say that a public option was not the only way his goals could be met by the legislation. And that is a fact.
colby Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
“That’s why I cast it and qualified it as my opinion. ”

Well, just ’cause I love obnoxious semantics debates- you really didn’t. You said, “Obama basically gave up on the public option”. There was no qualification that this was only your view, or that you may be wrong. You stated it as a fact. Indeed, how could you not? Such a thing as, “Has Obama given up on the PO?” can’t be answered with opinions. Maybe you could have said it was your “Estimation” or “prediction”, but you didn’t even say that.

“But Obama did say that a public option was not the only way his goals could be met by the legislation. And that is a fact.”

Indeed! But it’s not “Obama basically gave up on the public option”.
Ray in Seattle Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
As I said, I am somewhat naive when it comes to professional politics, but even I know that when the president says about any legislative option – that the option is not necessary to reach his goals – then that’s the president giving up on it.
colby Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“As I said, I am somewhat naive when it comes to professional politics, but even I know that when the president says about any legislative option – that the option is not necessary to reach his goals – then that’s the president giving up on it.”

Well, I guess you don’t even know that. ‘Cause the thing is, that ISN’T giving up on the PO, and if you have to just keep saying such a point, without offering any evidence to support it (As you’re doing) then that’s a pretty big red flag that it’s a weak point.

Here’s the thing- even AFTER saying something else could accomplish those goals, he kept explaining the benefits of the public option. He kept talking about it in speeches, he kept having his advisers talk about in interviews (in fact, last week Jarret repeated the line about “something else could work”, but added, “but no one has shown us anything yet”). When the White House put out it’s own health care plan after the speech to Congress (when Obama said he was open to alternatives) it included a PO. At no point did he signal that outside advocacy groups- including OFA, which he can exert some real control over- should stop agitating for the public option. That last one is pretty key to me, as he DID send such signals to liberal advocacy groups during the stimulus fight. And at every point along the way, he has insisted that the PO was “still alive” and could still be part of the reform package.

Moreover, Congress, doesn’t work in a vaccuum. Reid put the PO in the merged bill (he didn’t “bring it back to life”; it was never dead, it had been in the HELP bill the whole time) AFTER consulting Obama about it. He needs Obama, especially for re-election, he’s not gonna get out ahead of him. And the House has already gone out on a limb for Obama (on the climate bill and the war supplemental). Pelosi and her troops weren’t going to go there again if Obama had made it clear he was holding a saw.

Now, I think it’s fair to say Obama hasn’t done enough for the PO. And he clearly hasn’t issued any ultimatums about it. But that’s all quite different from “giving up” on it, no matter how many times we insist that words SECRETLY MEAN something other than what they, y’know, mean.
Ray in Seattle Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Hey, I think it means he “basically” gave up on it. He indicated that if the bill didn’t have the PO he would not veto it for that reason. He didn’t have to say that but chose to.

I say he gave up on it and it doesn’t bother me a bit that you see it differently. What’s your problem? Afraid I might put another crack in his bubble?
colby Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
“Hey, I think it means he “basically” gave up on it.”

I understand that, but I disagree. That statement, on its own, just does NOT indicate that he gave up on the PO, “basically” or otherwise.

Put it this way: if you ask any player in the NFL if they’d trade in their chance to win the Super Bowl just to beat their divisional rival, they’d all tell you “no way”. But ain’t none of ‘em giving up on beating that rival (Okay, maybe the Browns have, but that’s something else). Same thing’s going on here; just ’cause he’s willing to pass the rest of the health care bill without the PO doesn’t mean he’s given up on the PO.

Now, I’ll admit that that statement is ambiguous, and were it all the evidence we had, this would be a completely different discussion. But it’s not. We also have his continued advocacy for the PO, even after that statement. We have his continued support for legislators and legislation that backs the PO. We have the leaders in both chambers, who both decided to include the PO after consulting him. And we have his continued insistence that the PO could be part of the bill, even after Teddy’s death, even after August, even after Baucuscare.

And, btw- “he didn’t have to say” any of that, “but chose to”.

I don’t know that these things mean he’s definitely still fighting for it, or gonna get it, or anything like that. But they make the conclusion that he’s given up on it very difficult to stand with, especially when the only evidence FOR that position is a statement that doesn’t even SAY that, no matter how many times you repeat it.

“I say he gave up on it and it doesn’t bother me a bit that you see it differently.”

Clearly it does, as you’re still arguing with me. It also pretty clearly bothers you that I have the gall to debate you on this point. You’ll live.

“What’s your problem?”

Calm down, Francis. You made an assertion, I challenged it. You stated your thoughts, I stated my disagreement with them. This is debate, this is what happens on an open forum, and if you’re gonna react this poorly to it, you’d be better off keeping your political naivete.

“Afraid I might put another crack in his bubble?’

Not with the way you’re debating the issue, no.
Ray in Seattle Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
This is getting comical. I like comedy so I’ll reply.

I am a constituent, a voter. It is my impression from watching the news and the NPR analysis of his remarks on the PO that he basically gave up on it. Maybe I missed where later – after several congress critics who had put a line in the sand on the PO explained to him how he had cut off their legs – he came back and re-affirmied his strong and unequivocal support for it. Maybe I missed that night on NPR. Or maybe the folks on NPR didn’t think he reaffirmed his support for the PO in a way that was newsworthy or significant. I don’t know.

But whatever actually happened, I believe he gave up on it from what I was aware of. If that makes any difference at all to him – after he reads this he’s welcome to schedule a press conference tomorrow to correct my incorrect impression of hos position.

I am not debating anything. I’m telling you this is my opinion. It doesn’t bother me one bit you think I’m wrong does it bother me that you are saying so in comments on this forum. Neither do I feel any need to convince you I’m right.

FWIW I voted for him.
Matthew Yglesias » John Hannah, Patriot Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 11:29 am
[...] among the American people. Indeed, people hated him so much that the public continues to have extremely low confidence in the political party to which he belonged. Indeed, UFO conspiracy theories are more popular than [...]
colby Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 11:32 am
“I am a constituent, a voter.”

Great, so am I. That and $5 will get us a cup of Starbucks.

“It is my impression from watching the news and the NPR analysis of his remarks on the PO that he basically gave up on it.”

And I aim to correct such a faulty impression.

Listen, it’s not that such an impression is beyond reason or malicious or something; it’s just that it lacks evidentiary support. You’ve cited one quote that, for reasons I’ve stated and you haven’t refuted, DOESN’T clearly indicate that Obama’s given up on the PO. On the other side of the scale, there’s many, many examples (See my previous posts) that he continues to support it and push for it.

I understand that this all just comes “from what [you are] aware of”, and that you may not have seen all of these examples (NPR, frankly, has done a woeful job covering the HC debate; it doesn’t really matter that a guy making $200,000 a year is afraid of changing his insurer). But they’re all out there, they’re all easy to find. And honestly, as a “constituent, a voter” it’s kind of on you to stay well-informed.

“It doesn’t bother me one bit you think I’m wrong does it bother me that you are saying so in comments on this forum. Neither do I feel any need to convince you I’m right.”

Well…of course you do. Listen, if you just wanted to state your impression (and while it’s a faulty one, that’s a better word for it than “opinion”), you did that in the first post. You never needed to respond to me at all. But here we are, 8 replies later, still going at it. Intend it or not, that’s a “Debate”.

Now, you don’t have to debate. You can just post your impression and go on your merry way. But I can certainly post my disagreement with that impression just as much. And even then, you don’t have to respond. Given how you’ve reacted to it, maybe you shouldn’t. But the point is, the hell of an open forum is that the things you say will be challenged, even if you don’t want to debate them. If you don’t want to debate them, it’s on you to not reply. And honestly, that’s easier to do than the other thing anyway.
Ray in Seattle Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 2:34 pm
“And I aim to correct such a faulty impression. ”

You have failed.

I expressed a simple belief that seems to have bothered you on the emotional level – which is how strong beliefs work. It distressed you enough that you had to speak out (several times now) to discredit it – to blunt the threatening emotions that it caused in you. That’s fine with me.

You say we are debating about Obama’s views on the PO. No, we’re debating over your need to discredit a meme that threatens you. I suggest you get over it – but if you don’t that’s OK too.

As far as Obama’s real views on the PO; they are his. Unless you can be inside his brain your interpretation of his words is no more valid than mine. We are both guessing about what he really thinks about it – which may have changed since we started this conversation.

I have no need or desire to change your views on this and make them conform with mine. I’m happy to live my life knowing that you disagree with me on this. It’s a dead parrot as far as I’m concerned. Can you say the same? Or will you persist in your somewhat obsessive ” . . aim to correct such a faulty impression”.
colby Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Ray, we ARE still debating Obama’s position on the PO- or at least I am. I’ve introduced evidence to support my point, I’ve refuted evidence that supports yours, we’ve restated our opinions and elucidated why we think the things we do and what point of view we come from. I’ve found it rather informative, and quite a fun distraction.

I don’t know why you’re all of a sudden trying to make this about me, but it’s not. Honestly, I’m kind of irrelevant. If I hadn’t challenged you, someone else would’ve, and you would’ve ended up in just as long of a debate with them (and honestly, on MY’s blog? 24 posts is weak sauce for a debate). As I’ve tried to explain to you, that’s just the nature of an open forum, when you say something, it’s gonna get challenged. Again, if you don’t like it, the more prudent thing to do is ignore it, or say you don’t want to argue, rather than reply to each and every bleet and jot of the person challenging you.

Because ultimately, you’re right, we ARE both guessing at what Obama’s really thinking. In fact, I’ve qualified that my evidence DOESN’T mean he’s definitely still fighting for the PO, just that it introduces doubt to the idea that he’s given up on it. I’m not trying to convince you…of anything, really, least of all what’s in someone else’s head. I’m just saying you probably don’t know, either (unless you’re Axelrod. But I rather expect Axelrod wisely doesn’t give a good red shit what I think).

I hope you’ve found this debate as much fun as I have, and that I’m simply misreading your posts to see emotional outbursts and ad hominem attacks where none actually are. But if I’m not, remember this: for all your talk about my “somewhat obsessive ‘…aim’” and “speak[ing] out (several times now)”, you’ve responded each. And Every. Time. I’ve said something in this thread. And it sure don’t seem like you’re having nearly as much fun with it.
Ray in Seattle Says:
November 1st, 2009 at 2:05 am
Well, I do find it fun or I wouldn’t be doing it – and I guess you do too. I don’t know why you think I’m upset about anything.

Just to recap, technically you are responding to me. My #9 was an undirected comment on the original post. Yours was the first response to it – wherein you felt it was necessary to question my “facts” and accuse me of “painting with a broad brush” – because I had an opinion about an ambiguous response by Obama that you disagreed with.

I thought it was interesting that someone would take such strong exception to an opinion about something that no-one could be certain of. At that point it became interesting to see just how important it was to you to change my views – although I don’t think that’s what you were really doing. I suspect you were more concerned with what others here thought about how you handled this guy who said something less than complimentary about Obama.

The content of the exchange was pretty meaningless for me. But it is (was) interesting on the human nature level which I always enjoy.

I have no need to insult people I disagree with. From reading a few of your comments I think you are articulate and fairly smart. Let’s forget this pointless disagreement and argue about something important so it won’t be such a waste of time. Any suggestions? But if we do, I will not participate if you can’t stay away from the personal stuff. It doesn’t bother me so much but it is distracting and always screws up a good discussion. So I just don’t waste time on it. I figure if I can’t respect someone enough to disagree with them politely then I try to avoid them altogether. What views do we have that are both opposed and important if you’re up for it? And something that would fit into one of Matt’s threads, of course.
colby Says:
November 1st, 2009 at 3:28 am
Ray, I’ve been trying to get you off the subject of me for three posts now (and that marks the first time EVER I’ve tried to do that ). As I’ve been saying, I’m irrelevant here- Hell, YOU’RE the one who brought me up! So I’m glad you’re coming around.

No need to select another topic. I’m really not on here enough for it to matter.

And no need to worry about personal attacks, either- I’m not the one asking, “What’s your problem?” and calling replies “somewhat obsessive”, even as I respond to each and every one of them, and start dissecting the poster’s motives.

You DO have to worry about more “Meatballs” references, though. However, I promise next time I’ll get the quote right (”Lighten up”, not “Calm down”…dammit, Colby!)

Matt Yglesias

The Trust Gap

26 Responses to “The Trust Gap”

Blogroll