Health Care and the Elections
Brian Beutler notes the non-symbolic meaning of last night’s election results:
That creates some simple arithmetic. Yesterday, Democrats had 256 voting members in the House. By week’s end, they’ll have 258. Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could afford to lose no more than 38 Democratic votes on a landmark health care reform bill. Next week, after Owens and Garamendi are sworn in, she can lose up to 40. For legislation this historic and far-reaching, she’ll need every vote she can get–and both seem likely to support reform.
Garamendi is a liberal, and though Owens now represents a GOP-leaning district, here’s what he said about the bill at a debate last week with Doug Hoffman and Dede Scozzafava: “I think moving towards this legislation is very appropriate. I think the type or the form of the public option included in this bill is reasonable. It is not one that allows people to move to the government option if they already have health insurance overage. So it’s not going to control a significant segment of the population.”
The overwhelming lesson of 2009 in Washington DC has been, I think, that the cold hard facts about vote counts matter more—a lot more—than airy considerations about momentum and the like. Barack Obama inspired America with his campaign for change and hope and blah blah blah but what happens is what Ben Nelson and/or Olympia Snowe will vote for. The governor of New Jersey doesn’t have a vote on health care or energy or financial regulation or the budget or anything else. The Representative from the 10th District of California does, and so does the Representative from the 23rd District of New York. One can debate the larger meaning of it all as much as one cares to, but the situation is what it is. Public policy in New Jersey will shift somewhat to the right, in Virginia it will probably shift a lot to the right (less constraint from the state legislature), and on the federal level it will shift slightly to the left.
25 Responses to “Health Care and the Elections”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 4th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
“…the cold hard facts about vote counts matter more—a lot more—than airy considerations about momentum and the like.”
Er..OK then:
“Senior Congressional Democrats told ABC News today it is highly unlikely that a health care reform bill will be completed this year, just a week after President Barack Obama declared he was “absolutely confident” he’ll be able to sign one by then.”
Read and weep: http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=8987651&pid=4380645
November 4th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Far more likely, what will happen is nothing. These two would end up dragging the bill into territory nobody on the left is willing to follow.
right wing dems have done a good job of convincing the Democratic establishment that they are seeking to change this bill, but it’s pretty clear to the rest of us they just want to kill it. Every time a potential compromise is reached, a conservadem objects and demands the indenfensible. There’s no other reading of that other than the fact that they want to kill Health Care and still someone blame the left for it.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
@1: Because the votes aren’t there. The delay is in order to buy time to find a big enough cattle prod and the right part of Joe Lieberman’s body to apply it to in order to get enough votes.
If the Democrats had just picked up two more *Senate* seats instead of two more House seats, they’d let Lieberman and Nelson squawk all they want, lean quietly on Landrieu, and schedule the signing ceremony for next week, and no amount of Republicans partying at gubernatorial inaugurations would stop them.
60 butts in seats on the left side of the proverbial aisle does not mean, and never has meant, 60 heads planning to vote in solidarity, and that’s the problem that has confronted the Dem leadership and the White House since day one.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Unfortunately the tough math is in the Senate, and there’s been no improvement there.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Well, politicians aren’t robots executing a set agenda. They care very much about reelection, and use current elections as a guide to what voters care about. To the extent they read into these results trends about the popularity of the President’s agenda; that can change the legislative agenda.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
The VOTES depend upon the Elections and the Elections depend upon the Voters.
So when you refuse to point out the shortcomings of the Republicans — and you lapse into John Kerry mode where you can’t cite your objective without 20 qualifers to pander to various factions — then the Voters conclude you have your head up your ass and vote for the other guy.
Because no one trusts a coward. Or a sellout.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Re chris at 3: “60 butts in seats on the left side of the proverbial aisle does not mean, and never has meant, 60 heads planning to vote in solidarity, and that’s the problem that has confronted the Dem leadership and the White House since day one.”
So you pick one of the Senators from a chickenshit state like Montana and you use the power of the President to fuck him.
and to fuck Montana.
Maybe the White House could drag out the Ouija Board and ask the Shade of Lyndon Johnson for advice.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Chris, if they can’t do anything with 60 votes, what are the odds they could do something with 62 votes? You really think having 62 votes would result in any instance other than 4 squawking Senators rather than 2 Squawking Senators?
If we had 62 votes, Bayh and Laundraeu would take that as an excuse to join Lincoln and Lieberman in their complaints. No matter how many votes we have, we’re always going to be just a few votes short. This is just kabuki.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
You “We don’t have the votes!!1!” folks must realize that your argument is actually a good argument for not bothering to support conservative Democrats for any seat in the union, ever.
I mean, if all electing these folks give us is bragging rights, I think I’ll pass. We don’t need more members for organizational votes. These people won’t support the issues we care about. Why should we ever support them?
November 4th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
The overwhelming lesson of 2009 in Washington DC has been, I think, that the cold hard facts about vote counts matter more—a lot more—than airy considerations about momentum and the like.
===========================================================
Moderate Democrats don’t seem to think so.
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.
The abortion issue, which has simmered near the surface since the House bill was first unveiled, is one of the last that concerns a significant bloc of Democratic voters.
Rep. Kathleen Dahlkemper, a politically vulnerable freshman from Erie, Pa., said it is the “one major issue” standing in the way of her vote for the bill.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
But it’s not all bad news – the Senate is turning up the gain on cap & trade
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29099.html
Climate change on the back burner?
Climate change has slipped so far down on the agenda that at least one key committee chairman has suggested it might have to wait until after the 2010 elections.
A number of factors are conspiring against the Senate version of the bill: a Republican boycott on the Environment and Public Works Committee, a new EPA analysis that could take at least five weeks and wide-ranging disagreements among six competing Senate committee leaders who have jurisdiction.
“Some people are talking about not doing it until after the 2010 election,” Commerce Committee Chairman John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said Tuesday.
Democratic leaders also seem unwilling to expend much political capital on climate change when they aren’t even sure when health care reform might get done.
“We’re not going to be bound by any timelines” on health care, Reid told reporters after a closed-door lunch meeting with Senate Democrats.
The more time health care takes, say supporters, the further a climate bill most likely gets pushed back.
“Obviously, given where we are today, we have to wait for the [Congressional Budget Office] scoring on the health care bill,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). “That’s going to push us back.”
But Rockefeller warned that the difficulty of passing a bill will increase as the elections draw closer.
“It does make it tougher; everyone gets more scared,” he said.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
The ability of liberals to miss the forest for the trees is a wonder to behold. Yes Matt, the Dems did get two more votes in the House. Yipee!
But as kafka points out, the results of the elections have effectively killed “Obamacare” as represented by the various bills that are currently under consideration.
Because the Senate will not vote on anything until next year (yeah, right), that means that there will be no vote taken in the House either. The 40 Dems members from GOP leaning districts will not risk their re-election in an anti-incumbency election with, in the best case scenario, a recovering economy, by voting for a 2,000 page health care bill that was written by Nancy Pelosi’s very liberal staffers. They and the other Blue Dogs will tell her that enough of them will vote with the GOP to guarantee the defeat of the legislation. Rather than risk losing a vote on a bill containing a public option, the Leadership will not let the bill come up for a vote.
So stick a fork in it, the tea baggers may have lost NY-23, but they won the war. Obamacare is as dead as Ted Kennedy. At least, until after the midterms.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
In my experience, Politico is about as good at reporting as Sarah Palin is at speaking. They just take whatever the day’s issue is deemed to be, pick a side and write a story around that. How many times has the public option died, again?
Politico is horserace, zero-sum drivel. Reps just reply to their inquiries to get their name on a piece of paper.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
@Chicounsel
Could you also tell me who’s going to win game 6 of the World Series? Your forest/tree-seeing ability is astounding.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
So what’s changed? The so-called moderates were already nervous and the rest of the party knows they need to deliver in order to turn out the base. Therefore, they press on with HCR as if nothing happened because nothing has happened.
There is no reason to compromise with the most despised people in American politics.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
You “We don’t have the votes!!1!” folks must realize that your argument is actually a good argument for not bothering to support conservative Democrats for any seat in the union, ever.
Well, there are some votes where a conservative Democrat is better than a conservative Republican. But in general, yeah. Moderates do kind of suck. They’re just not quite as epically loony as Bachmann or something.
Ultimately the real problem is not just that there aren’t enough real liberals in Congress, but that there aren’t enough real liberals in the country. Building more support in the electorate would make it possible to replace some blue dogs and wafflers with actual liberals and that, in turn, would change the sausage factory. (The structure of the Senate is also systematically biased against urban areas, but there seems to be little that can be done about that.)
That, of course, is a massive, generations-long effort, so it’s much more attractive to whine about how Obama hasn’t exercised his manly willpower and stopped relying on the legislative branch to write his legislation for him.
P.S. Also, abolishing the filibuster would be a big help. Then the number of votes which must be had is simply a majority, which makes a huge difference. But the senators positioned to be on the filibuster margin are the ones who are going to be most opposed to its abolition.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Seems to me that independent voters in a state governor election are the least inclined to cast their vote based upon what Obama or other national politicians are doing, so I’m not sure what the conservatives who actually favor state self-determination are crowing about.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Intelligent legislators generally won’t decide their positions on national issues based on the results of local or regional elections (that are driven mostly by local or regional trends).
However, not all legislators are intelligent.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Well, there are some votes where a conservative Democrat is better than a conservative Republican.
Quite a few, actually. According to Progressive Punch’s statistics, a guy like Ben Nelson is going to side with progressives on about 40% of crucial votes. That may be a frustratingly low percentage for progressive Democrats who expect more from their fellow partisans, but a guy like Mike Johanns is going to vote with progressives on about 2% of crucial votes. So that is a substantial number of votes where a Nelson is in fact preferably to a Johanns, and you will find the same thing with any comparable pairs.
Ultimately the real problem is not just that there aren’t enough real liberals in Congress, but that there aren’t enough real liberals in the country.
I have to disagree with you a bit there, at least up to a point. There are still a decent number of Senate seats currently held by Republicans that if flipped would likely be taken over by non-conservative Democrats. You probably can’t get the 60th vote much more progressive than something in the Tester/Baucus/Dorgan range, but that would move the progressive crucial votes percentage of that marginal person up from around 40% to potentially in the 50s. Moreover, there would be a lot more ways to put together a 60-vote coalition on any given issue.
So I do think if Democrats can keep flipping Senate seats in blue and purple states, Congress will keep generating more and more progressive outcomes, up to at least a notably higher point than now.
But the senators positioned to be on the filibuster margin are the ones who are going to be most opposed to its abolition.
Yep, but the more ways of getting to 60 that you have, the less the filibuster power of any one Senator in the 50+ range, so the better your chances of finally getting the votes you need to end it. So this consideration also suggests the more Senate Democrats the better.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
That seems a bit like the primary last year- as much as we talked about Clinton getting a second wind and regaining momentum, after Wisconsin, the delegate votes just weren’t there for her to catch up.
“Rather than risk losing a vote on a bill containing a public option, the Leadership will not let the bill come up for a vote.”
Actually, the leadership has already decided that they’ll vote on it Saturday. But then, the bill wasn’t written by “Nancy Pelosi’s very liberal staffers”, either, so whatevskies.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Except that they’re setting up for a vote in the House by Saturday.
If chicounsel blows bull in the forest, will anyone care?
November 4th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Re: Read and weep
Who are these “Senior Democrats”? Libermann and cohorts trying to sabotage the process? I’ve read elsewhere that other unnamed Democrats have contradicted this anonymous source, though you have to dig to find this.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Re: that means that there will be no vote taken in the House either.
Where are you getting this from? Faux News? Every source I’ve seen states that the vote in the House will come in the next few days. Good grief the Right is getting desperate enough to lie right through their teeth in the face of contrary information. Yes, there is an abortion kerfluffle. My guess is a quickie compromise will patch it over. This is not a hard compromise to make: no one on the Left is really gung-ho on abortion being included as a mandated benefit in anything. The compromise will tak this form: explicit language banning elective abortion coverage from the Public Option, and vaguer language not allowing public funds to pay for private abortion coverage (but not banning such coverage outright)
November 4th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
[...] Obama last year. But, perhaps more importantly, the president picks up another Congressional seat that can help with health care reform (the former holder of the seat is John McHugh, a moderate Republican who was selected by Obama to [...]
November 4th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Congratulations, you just earned yourself an entry in my feed reader, great blog. Please come visit my site Corpus Christi Business Services And Classifieds when you got time.