Congress Shifts Left
I’ve been feeling sick and wasn’t up for waiting for the NY-23 returns. But now that we’re in we know that the CA-10 vacancy created by Ellen Tauscher becoming an Undersecretary of State has resulted in a moderate Democrat being replaced by a progressive Democratic, and the NY-23 vacancy created by John McHugh becoming Secretary of the Army has resulted in a moderate Republican being replaced by a moderate Democrat. This is consistent with national surveys which show President Obama to be more popular than congressional Democrats who are, in turn, more popular than congressional Republicans.
Probably not huge policy implications of this, but it’s a modest shift to the left of the balance of power in the House. Nancy Pelosi now has an easier time rounding up 218 votes for a health care bill, for example, and each and every Blue Dog has his or her individual leverage over the process reduced.
48 Responses to “Congress Shifts Left”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 4th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Well, you’re wrong, because what really matters in the country is when Republicans win 2 governors’ races. On the other hand, in 2001, when Democrats won both NJ & VA, everyone concluded that of course this didn’t mean anything, and America supported Bush Jr’s agenda. Now, though, a bigger more liberal Democratic majority in the House is unimportant, and 2 governors’ races are, because the media said so. The End.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:35 am
From what I hear Owens is a conservative Democrat more than a moderate one.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Owens is, but Garamenda replaces Tauscher, and Owens is more liberal than a Republican.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Garamendi.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:38 am
From what I hear Owens is a conservative Democrat more than a moderate one
the point is that he isn’t a Palinite Conservative. Funny how the MSM completely wrote Owens off – they’re all in the tank for the right wing nuts. suddenly gotta shift the narrative to talk about Owen not being a real Democrat or something
November 4th, 2009 at 9:01 am
NY23 is a huge win for Democrats. The Republicans have owned that seat since Lincoln was president. So much for endorsements from Limbaugh, Palin, and Armey.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:30 am
There’ll be a GOP primary for NY-23 next year, and presumably the same teabaggage scenario. In the meantime, Owens (at best, a Blue Dog) will be given some nice committee assignments, attributed some bennies for Fort Drum, etc. He’s probably just keeping the seat warm, but who knows, the longer the ‘baggers keep thinking that every district needs some Dick Armey.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:36 am
The lessons from NY 23 are pretty simple, actually:
1) ” the MSM completely wrote Owens off – they’re all in the tank for the right wing nuts..”
Not so. They just prefer to cover a story they know how to cover, instead of one they don’t. They are familiar with a paid media-driven, highly ideological story with celebrities. Oddly, people who cover politics are NOT familiar with the old school civics of identifying your voters, putting flyers in their mailboxes and driving them to the polls, which is the stuff that wins turnout elections like this one. Limbaugh, Palin, and Armey weren’t going to drive vans from the senior centers to the election sites. That would be the unions, registered Democrats and Dede’s supporters.
2) Even more oddly, there WAS a story which they could have reported — but didn’t: this was an outsider vs. insider tale, only not a narrative driven by celebrities. Neither Limbaugh, Palin, Armey — nor even their CANDIDATE — was a local guy. It got reported, but almost as a footnote, that most of Hoffman’s money was from outside the district. An old-school political reporter would have seen this as Carpetbagging more than Teabagging.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:02 am
I think we are, once again, underestimating the tactical genius of Palin here. She was handing the ball OFF to Hoffman so he could PASS the ball to the other side giving conservatives an excellent chance to regroup around their OWN goal instead of politics as USUAL, which means driving for the other side’s GOAL – and America is about its OWN GOAL, sweet land of liberty! The end result of which is MORE gains, in a monetary sort of sense, like a spring harvest, for the Palin family, because, in conclusion, cheaters never prosper.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:03 am
(taking off hat) Well-played, sir.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Not sure how the big story of the day is not that all the dimmest lights of the Loony Right butted in on a local race and ended up putting a Dem in a seat the Repubs have had a lockdown on for generations.
If the media are looking for a handle on the dynamics of ‘10 and ‘12, this is obviously the place to start. Given the storyline we’ve had shoved down our throats for the past year, this would seem to have huge implications.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:15 am
I think that NY-23 worked out about as well as any Dem could dream for. They get the seat, but it was close enough for the teabaggers to talk themselve into believing that it was all Dede’s fault and if she’d only stick to the party line, they would’ve had it. But it also justifies the concerns of the sane wing of the Republican party (is Gingrich now on the sane wing? Has is come to that?) and they’ll now fight even harder to prevent a complete right-wing lurch. Commencing GOP Civil War in 3…2….1….
November 4th, 2009 at 10:26 am
The GOPer candidate dropped out and endorsed the Dem. Why not? GOPocrats are just interchangeable whores.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Surely, this post is entirely facetious. The “implication” is that Democrats lost a lot of races last night, and that is going to scare the bejesus out of the ones who weren’t on the ballot. The brakes are going on health care reform so fast we’ll be launched through the windshield.
The other “implication” is that the White House political team blundered. Obama didn’t stay away from losers (Corzine), attach himself to a winner (Owens), or help someone who obviously could have won (Thompson). The political pros advising members of congress, etc. are not merely going to be looking at the headline races, but also at the individually pertinent results, such as the three Democratic congressmen from Virginia who are now sh*tting their pants.
Owens won because of the stupidity of the New York GOP insiders, not because of Hoffman, who could have won even with disadvantage of being from out of the district. The lesson is more about the stupidity of the New York GOP than anything else.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:47 am
is Gingrich now on the sane wing? Has is come to that?
Oh, it’s come to that. Some Guys on Websites are calling Orrin Hatch a RINO. Orrin Hatch!
November 4th, 2009 at 10:51 am
The “implication” is that Democrats lost a lot of races last night, and that is going to scare the bejesus out of the ones who weren’t on the ballot. The brakes are going on health care reform so fast we’ll be launched through the windshield.
They lost races at the gubernatorial and mayoral level, which is not where health care is voted on.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:53 am
BRG:
El Cid:
Scozzafava the “Republican” was more liberal than Owens. So to say Owens is more liberal than a Republican is false.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Scozzafava the “Republican” was more liberal than Owens.
Dooooo tell.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Scozzafava the “Republican” was more liberal than Owens. So to say Owens is more liberal than a Republican is false.
really Steve? and what do you base that upon?
And why the “scare quotes” around Scozzafava being the “Republican” – do you have knowledge that she really isn’t? Maybe you should share that knowledge with the 11 county GOP chairpeople (I guess when they’re republican we can still call them chairmen) who picked her to be the Republican standard-bearer. Gotta be news to them.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:24 am
So Scozzafava’d be the only Republican rep to vote with Dems on HCR?
BTW, how is it possible that NOBODY thought to ask these guys how they’d vote on HCR, which Owens is going to have to vote for immediately?!?!?
November 4th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Last night proved two things:
1) Republicans who run as moderates can beat unpopular Democrats.
2) Awesomely wingnutty Sarah Palin Republicans who make the tea party set swoon and gleefully purge moderates from their own party to advance the great patriotic cause of liberty? They can lose to moderate Democrats just about anywhere in America.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Typical bunch of horse shit. But it must be true because I heard dumbasses like Glenn Beck and Neal Boortz and Herman Cain said it, it’s true.
Once Scozzafava was elected, she would have voted along with the Democrats in the House just like all those other moderate and liberal Republicans have been doing. Clearly.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:28 am
“BTW, how is it possible that NOBODY thought to ask these guys how they’d vote on HCR, which Owens is going to have to vote for immediately?!?!?”
?? We have the votes in the House, plus there’s no filibuster there. That’s not where the action is.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:32 am
BTW, how is it possible that NOBODY thought to ask these guys how they’d vote on HCR, which Owens is going to have to vote for immediately?!?!?
I know – it’s all such a mystery! – and of course the wingers are telling us that Scazzafava is more liberal than Owen – so he MUST be a conservative, right? I mean wingers never lie, do they? And their version of “reality” is so spot on compared to the rest of us. Why are Owens views on HCR such a mystery??
From Owens website:
Bill Owens on Health Care Reform
Bill Owens is committed to health care reform. He understands that we need reform for the millions of Americans who don’t have affordable health care, as well as for those who have inadequate care or live in fear that their coverage may not be there when they really need it. As a Member of Congress, Bill Owens will fight for health care reform that responsibly fixes our broken system for us and for future generations.
Bill Owens supports health care reform that accomplishes these goals:
· Supports: Controlling health care costs for the middle class.
· Supports: Providing access to affordable health insurance for every American.
· Supports: Preventing insurance companies from denying coverage to anybody based on previous existing conditions and bans caps on lifetime coverage.
· Supports: Giving small business and individuals access to the lowest rates available to federal employees and large corporations.
· Supports: Allowing anybody to keep their existing coverage.
· Supports: Using profits from repayment of TARP funds, allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, increased efficiency in our health care system (like putting all health care records on-line and requiring insurance companies to accept payment on-line), and cutting special interest tax loopholes (like tax benefits for companies that offshore jobs) to help pay for health care reform.
· Supports: Allowing states to use savings from elimination of uncompensated care costs (Over $100 billion annually) to reduce taxes. In New York this would help prevent property tax increases.
Bill Owens is opposed to:
· Opposes: Medicare benefit cuts. We can all agree that there are inefficiencies and waste in the system, but any savings should be used to strengthen Medicare.
· Opposes: Taxing health care benefits.
· Opposes: Increasing taxes on the middle class in any way.
such a shame that nobody bothered to ask about this stuff. I’m sure his constituents had absolutely no idea….
November 4th, 2009 at 11:36 am
RE: Andy #19
You see, SteveAR puts scare quotes around “Republican” when referring to Scozzafava, because a highly coordinated mass-media propaganda campaign told him to believe that she was a scary ACORN-associated leftist, based on a few shreds of mostly distorted evidence. Obviously, the local party members who respected and nominated her are in on the conspiracy, and the Republicans who didn’t follow the script from HQ are clearly running dogs of liberalism who must also be purged.
What is this knowledge and evidence you speak of? The cult leaders said so, therefore it is so.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:46 am
I’ve mentioned this in a few posts – but I really think that cultural differences really had a big impact on this election. Republicans in the northeast ARE different than the religious right culture warriors who dominate the party in the rest of the country – and that is why Republicans are fading as a party in the northeast.
People who live near the Canadian border do not want or need the likes of Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey with their tv preacher accents telling them who really is and isn’t a Republican or not.
The MSM and the blogosphere has been so fixated on the media power of Sarah Palin et al that they really totally missed the boat that “all politics is local”. I bet those people in that district, who have voted Republican for generations, absolutely resented outsiders coming in and telling them that they aren’t “real” Republicans because cultural values in New York are different than in the mouth-breathing red states.
If Hoffman was running in Tennessee or somewhere like that I have no doubt he would have won – but, and I’ve said this before, the Southerns running the GOP really are completely clueless and tonedeaf to how discredited they are in the rest of the country. How long (if ever) before the MSM actually figures this out?
November 4th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
I love how you leftist clowns are trying to spin Scozzafava as some kind of conservative because she had an (R) next her name. Yes I’ve read about her. She’s a clown like you all. I notice you clowns also forgot that the “Republican” Scozzafava ended up supporting the Democrat Owens. Yeah, yeah, the Republicans ended up throwing her over; big deal, get over it. It’s not as if the people decided she would be a candidate, but a bunch of other clowns (like you) that run the Republican Party in the area. She didn’t like being thrown over, whined, and supported the Democrat. Whining is a policy amongst leftist clowns.
As with Specter, you can have Scozzafava.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
So, everyone to the left of Dick Armey is no longer a Republican? There won’t even be a tent anymore, the whole party will be able to fit under a small blanket. But at least it would be pure!
November 4th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Steve, I think you forgot to include the evidence that Scozzafava is, as you put it, “more liberal” than Owens. Do you mind showing that? Thx!!!
November 4th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Though that might be the logical conclusion, somehow I don’t think that’s going to be the takeaway from yesterday.
Blue Dogs will shit their pants and run to the right, and “normal” Dems will check their drawers, then decide, “maybe I should tack right also.”
November 4th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
“… clowns… clowns…. clowns like you…. clowns…, etc., etc.,”
And thus ends another sharp piece of political analysis by our own SteveAR. Yes, it’s exactly for that sort of incisive that brings us back for more and more inside information from one of the sharpest minds on the interwebs.
Come back next week when SteveAR share’s his insider’s scoop on why Krusty gets his very own scare quotes around being a “Republican” also – (hint: he’s a clown)
November 4th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I like this from #14:
Owens won because of the stupidity of the New York GOP insiders, not because of Hoffman, who could have won even with disadvantage of being from out of the district.
He lost, but the important thing is, he “could have” won, if something or other had been different. Why stop there? In an alternate reality, he did win! Bust out the counterfactual champagne!
November 4th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Whine, whine, whine….a paragraph of asshurt..
Whining is a policy amongst leftist clowns.
Watch out Steve, they are going to pull your teabagging card.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I am not going to argue with Republicans branding Dede Scozzafava as a liberal. All that does is underscore the magnitude of Hoffman’s defeat. The Democrat and the arch-liberal radical extremist Republican combined for 56% of the vote against the darling of the wingnuts. I’m down with that.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
andy:
You’re clowns because you’re funny. What’s funnier is that you can’t even admit that you’re leftists or even statists. You call yourselves liberals and progressives, as if that were true. You’re throwbacks.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
SteveAR is totally right. He should train his binocs on that Christie fellow. Do you know he favors civil unions for homo – I said homo – homosexuals! Sodomists! Plus he said he wouldn’t “shove his views” on abortion down the voters throats. Why, that is clearly the spirit of Ted Kennedy, come up from hell itself, speaking through his evil meat-puppet! It is not really hard to see that, a., Christie has 666 written on his forehead in invisible ink, Satanic lemon juice and b., his kind of Republican has been excommunicated by the founder and leader of the Republican Party, Glenn Beck. the only son of God. When Beck is crucified, who will be there, handing out the nails?
You should do all you can to drive this menace from you party!
November 4th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
That kind of analysis is why you’re referred to as Dims and why you’re going to get your clocks cleaned 12 months from now.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
The best thing that happened on election day was that Republican’s, I’m sorry – the Conservative, candidate lost in District 23.
The Rep’s lost because the National GOP party did the same thing the Obama administration tried to do in NY state – they put their nose in where it doesn’t belong. ALL Politics is local.
Instead of focusing on a handful of elections – the MSM should be evaluating the local elections.
From Boston “….around the state, voters in Lynn, Worcester, Woburn, Brockton, and North Adams ousted incumbent mayors in several surprising shake-ups.”
The same is true in Florida “…rejected the incumbents..”
The results were both rep/dem, lib/con, right/left….if your looking for a national trend – which could impact 2010 – there is a minority of people who are just voting the incumbent’s out. We’re going to our primaries and if need be – crossing party lines in the General Elections to get rid of the incumbents.
Say it isn’t so… Look at the numbers and compare, from prior years.
* Ca District 10 – should have been a double digit win – Dem’s are lucky the GOP did not take that seat seriously.
* NYC Mayor race – it’s true, a win is a win, but Bloomberg paid a pretty penny for each and everyone of those votes. I wonder what the result’s would have been if Obama stumped in NYC.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Probably not huge policy implications of this, but it’s a modest shift to the left of the balance of power in the House. Nancy Pelosi now has an easier time rounding up 218 votes for a health care bill, for example, and each and every Blue Dog has his or her individual leverage over the process reduced.
=============================================================
Jeebus, that’s about 180 degrees from what the Blue Dogs are saying
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29106.html
Even safe Democrats feeling at risk
Jim Costa’s path to reelection isn’t the toughest among House Democrats, but that doesn’t mean the California Democrat feels safe voting for a House health care overhaul bill that he says is too costly and does too little to help rural districts like his own.
“I think we’re all vulnerable next year,” said Costa, who won with nearly three-quarters of the vote last year in a district that President Barack Obama carried with 60 percent.
Costa is one of a handful of moderate House Democrats from relatively stable districts who aren’t yet on board with the health care bill and whose “no” votes could force colleagues in more marginal districts to cast offsetting — and potentially perilous — “yes” votes.
Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) — from a 59 percent Obama district — is another. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who won with 69 percent of the vote in 2008 and has never gotten less than 59 percent, is also in play, calling himself “undecided
There are those like Alabama Rep. Bobby Bright, a conservative freshman Democrat from a Republican-tilting district in southeastern Alabama, who are so dead set against the bill that last-minute calls would be a waste of energy for party leaders. No one expects lawmakers like Bright — who won despite Obama getting just 37 percent of the vote in his district — to risk a “yes” vote.
“They really haven’t inquired with me,” Bright said from a leather chair on the Republican side of the lobby outside the House chamber. “I guess my leadership thinks I’m the closest thing to a Republican that can be in the Democratic Party, and they’ve left me alone.”
There are whole camps of moderate lawmakers who want to see changes to the bill’s handling of abortion and immigration. Some aren’t likely to vote for the bill even if their demands on those issues are met.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
[...] loss in NY-23. (Would shoulda coulda!) Never mind, of course, that the Dems actually picked up a seat in the House overall. And finally, slimy Maggie Gallagher is “so happy” about the [...]
November 4th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
What a dumb comment. How many members of the House are there? 465 or so? And the comment says that the outcome of two congressional races “shifts congress left”? Those two congressmen could be Castro and Lenin and it would have NO appreciable effect on the outcome of any House votes. Pelosi already has HUGE majorities and these two seats are irrelevant. The two governor races are irrelevant too. What is NOT irrelevant is Obama/Pelosi’s tanking approval ratings, the huge shift of independents back to the Right, and Obama’s failure to accomplish much of anything. The Dems are going to get waxed in 2010.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
“How many members of the House are there? 465 or so?”
Hey, thanks for stopping by.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Like health insurance, a donated kidney can sometimes be the difference between life and death.
Is it FAIR to have people hanging on in dialysis, or even dying, while millions walk around with two healthy kidneys?
The government could require blood and tissue samples from every citizen. Then, when a kidney is needed, they could determine the optimal match from a database. The next step is to direct that matching individual to report to the hospital on a specified date, and relinquish his kidney. If he fails to do so, he could be fined, or even executed, and have all organs harvested.
What sort of industrialized nation fails to take care of its people’s kidney needs in such a way? Are we barbaric enough to allow kidney donation to continue to be voluntary? Are we barbaric enough to not tax wage-earners to provide health insurance, hybrid cars, wi-fi, and ambrosia for every American?
Do citizens really have a right to their own organs, or their own earnings?
November 4th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I don’t know why the Republicans are getting all worked up over winning the governor’s races. If NJ had a Democratic candidate other than Corzine he would have won. Virginia is always a toss-up state and the guy who ran is just an average candidate. The Republicans make it sound like they had some landslide victories. Let’s face it, they wanted that race in NY in the worst way, but it went with the Dems and they also won the congressional race in Califronia. I’d rather have two congressmen than a couple of governors. Laws are made in Washington, not in each state. I could care less what happens in NJ and VA.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Whoa, look at Jonathan Swift over here! MKS, let me ask: if taxing someone for health care is the same as taking their organs, how can you justify any taxes at all? By your logic we shouldn’t have publicly-funded police, firemen, schools, or soldiers.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Had to read that MKS screed a couple of times. That is some three-dimensional circular logic right there. Not sure what else to say, but just wanted to comment on that brilliant piece of….well whatever that was.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Wow, loving the two photos you posted. You got potential. Please come visit my site Durham Community Video Library when you got time.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
@38 9corona: Are you operating in base-12, or something? Or did you just mean that CA-10 should have been a BIGGER double digit win?
This was special election; the turnout was less than half of the average (in a largely Democratic district), there was no incumbent and Garamendi still won by 10 points.