House Democrats Voting No
An interesting table from The New York Times profiles the House Democrats who voted “no” on health reform last night. Mostly it’s people from districts that went for John McCain, oftentimes heavily so. There’s also Artur Davis whose district suggests he ought to be a solid Democratic vote but who’s running for governor of Alabama and thus tacking way to the right of what his district requires. You’ve also got idiosyncratic nos from Brian Baird and Dennis Kucinich and a clutch of freshman Dems from districts Obama won.
This last group, I think, provided the House leadership with a margin of error on the vote. The leaders want to hold these seats, so are happy to let these folks vote no if their votes aren’t necessary. But it’s far from clear that a Larry Kissell or a John Adler (both from districts Obama won by five percent) actually does need to vote need to vote no in order to stay viable. Arms could be twisted in other words. Given how close the vote was in the end, it’s noteworthy that there was no real sign of nervousness from the House leadership all day—they had this in the bag.
26 Responses to “House Democrats Voting No”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 8th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
One of Karl Rove’s ideas is that a narrow win is better than a win with a large margin, because it means you got as much as you could into the final result without unnecessary giving anything away. The narrow vote suggests this bill is as strong as it could be while still passing.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Voting no does so little to help. You can not claim you defeated it and you can not take credit for helping your constituents. “I tried but I failed” is a pathetic campaign slogan.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
It’s pretty amazing how Blue Dogs follow so far behind the curve of populist anger. (It’s almost like they’re auditioning for lobbyist jobs right now!)
They certainly won’t get re-elected to their current seats while ‘health care savings’ tranche right into insurance companies’ coffers…so it’s really no matter at all how the f**k they voted. Good riddance to them, and more pain for us.
Rahm has it pretty well-figured out how to get the President re-elected, and all we can hope for is “f**king stupid” from the White House.
(…ooops, I just booted more of the KoolAid I drank last year….)
November 8th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Betsey Markey, who took over Marilyn Musgrave’s seat with a great deal of work by progressives, voted against health care. Earlier this summer she didn’t feel safe having large meetings because of the guns and threats of violence from the teabaggers, so she met with groups of 20 instead.
How could she possibly side with the people who made those threats, those who carried guns to Obama’s speeches, those who placed a holocaust image front and center at Bachman’s latest event? She has completely validated the tactic of threats, and they will only escalate the next time.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
One of Karl Rove’s ideas is that a narrow win is better than a win with a large margin, because it means you got as much as you could into the final result without unnecessary giving anything away.
Not only that, but it demoralizes the opposition to realize that the vote is going to be close, rally the troops to make the extra effort to defeat it if they can, and then see all that effort go down the tubes when bill after bill passes by a narrow margin.
This sort of populist anger cannot be sustained over the long term. Eventually the Republicans will learn to accept that they can’t defeat these bills and simply opt to make deals with the Democrats on the bills so that they’ll get something out of it, rather than nothing.
It’s pretty amazing how Blue Dogs follow so far behind the curve of populist anger.
No kidding. Where were they when Glass-Steagal was being repealed?
November 8th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
When the “no” Dems come whining for money next summer, it will be my distinct pleasure to tell them to get lost. Some good does come of being on mailing lists after all.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Re: Voting no does so little to help.
It does keep the opposition from running ads against you based on a Yes vote.
By the way, I asume Kucinich voted No because the bill was not liberal (for lack of a better word) enough. Anyone else in that category?
Re: Where were they when Glass-Steagal was being repealed?
To be fair, Glass-Steagal was as obsolete as the mohair subsidy, and the banks had long since figured out how to maneuver around it. Of course it needed to be replaced by regulations more suited to the times, not just repealed.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
A couple of points here – first, I think Matt is definitely right that there was wiggle room here. 219 Democrats voted for the bill (I don’t know whether they knew Cao was going to vote with them or not). So basically the leadership whipped up exactly as many votes as they needed and then let everyone else vote no if they wanted to. They could’ve gotten more votes if they’d needed them.
Second point – in terms of political effects and credit-taking, it’s important to remember that, most likely, this is not the final vote. There will be a conference report after the Senate passes its bill. I suspect that there will be a lot of Democrats who voted against the House bill and vote for the conference report. They can say that they didn’t like the “too liberal” house bill, but still made sure to support good, moderate health care reform of the sort embodied by the conference report. You’ll probably get 235 or so on the final bill, if not more.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I’m proud of Artur Davis. This was very unexpected, especially since he is a classmate and friend of Obama’s. Further votes will show remorse, and the idea dies again for 20-40 more years. Then, perhaps, Congress can do what 75% of Americans have asked for: fix the ECONOMY!!
November 8th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Then, perhaps, Congress can do what 75% of Americans have asked for: fix the ECONOMY!!
Yes, because keeping a healthcare “system” in place that is set up to drain every spare cent from people’s wallets is clearly the best way to “fix the ECONOMY!!”
I’d ask “how dumb are you?” but you’ve already shown that.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
The 39 Democrats and the money they received from Health care lobbyists/Percentage of their campaign funds. Sure explains why these 39 Democrats VOTED NO.
Bright, Bobby Neal D AL-2 $77,250=14.50%,Chandler, Albert Benjamin D KY-6 $232,600=15.50%, Childers,Travis Wayne D MS-1 $80,900=18.50%, Davis, Artur Genestre D AL-7 $364,890=18.60%, Davis, Lincoln Edward D TN-4 $242,825=17.40%, Edwards, Thomas Chester D TX-17 $643,971=23.20%, Gordon, Barton Jennings D TN-6 $1,192,646=14.20%,Griffith, Parker D AL-5 $248,700=15.50%, Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie D SD $330,924=13.50% Holden, Thomas Timothy D PA-17 $388,278=10.40%,Kissell, Larry D NC-8 $54,616=20.30%, Kosmas, Suzanne M. D FL-24 $81,365=20.30%, Kratovil, Frank M. Jr. D MD-1 $105,706=11.10%, Kucinich, Dennis D OH-10 $370,579=13.20%,Markey, Betsy D CO-4 $77,883=17.80%,Marshall, Jim D GA-8 $462,425=21.50%,Massa, Eric J.J. D NY-29 $50,871=9.90%, Matheson, James David D UT-2 $789,429=15.80%, McIntyre, Mike D NC-7 $427,948= 23.10%, McMahon, Michael E. D NY-13 $100,220=10.90%, Melancon, Charles J. D LA-3 $276,452=18.10%, Minnick, Walt D ID-1 $142,164=19.80%, Murphy, Scott D NY-20 $30,223=11.90%, Nye, Glenn C. D VA-2 $123,150=12.40%, Peterson, Collin Clark D MN-7 $235,870=11.30%,Ross, Michael Avery D AR-4 $979,520=22.20%,Shuler, Heath D NC-11 $195,262=21.30%, Skelton, Isaac Newton D MO-4 $250,754=16.80%, Tanner, John S. D TN-8 $970,149=16.00%, Taylor,Gary Eugene D MS-4 $265,153=22.30% ,Teague, Harry D NM-2 $73,375=25.00%
NOTE: Bill Owens (D-N.Y.) and John Garamendi (D-Calif.) were elected Nov. 3, 2009.
SOURCES: OpenSecrets.org, Urban Institute, House clerk
CREDIT: Karen Yourish, Ryan O’Neil and Laura Stanton — The Washington Post
© 2009 The Washington Post Company
Tennessee
November 8th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Why the F*ck would Dennis Kucinich vote no on the health care bill? I thought he’s supposed to be a liberal. I’m slightly disappointed in Artur Davis too, but I’m willing to cut him some slack- it would be worth it to see a African-American governor of Alabama.
Parenthetically, I’m really happy with the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which will restrict coverage of elective abortions. I would have supported the bill passing even without the amendment, for reasons I made clear on this blog in the past, but this amendment is the cherry on top of the proverbial ice cream. And I’m happy that conscientious Democrats like Stupak, Kildee, Steve Lynch and James Langevin voted for it. Amen!
November 8th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Hector, Kucinich voted no because he is against the idea of for-profit insurance. Though my guess is that if his vote was absolutely needed for passage, he might have voted differently.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
That last group Matt identifies, the “idiosyncratic” Kucinich + freshmen… I’ll grant that they were probably released by Pelosi because she had the wiggle room, but what if she didn’t? I think it’s a safe bet that a significant number of those nos were in protest to the inclusion of the Stupak, et al., language. Especially given the frame of debate on the matter last night, it seems clear that if the bill does return from conference committee without that amendment the numbers will be tighter. (And given the brewing storm over its inclusion, the margin may shrink even if Stupak remains in the bill. Marcy Kaptur in particular seems to be vulnerable on her sponsorship of the language, and will be a prime target of women who feel unrepresented by their current political organizations.) I’m not sure yet what the ramifications of that calculus will be.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Skelton, Isaac Newton D MO-4 $250,754=16.80%
Well, that’s something I’ve learned today — Ike Skelton had ambitious parents.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Why the F*ck would Dennis Kucinich vote no on the health care bill? I thought he’s supposed to be a liberal.
He is. He made it clear he was voting no unless there was a robust public option (ie Medicare rates, not negotiated). If more progressives were like him and actually followed through on their threats the bloc would have to be taken seriously like Stupak’s was. Though like Hugo I imagine he would be an extremely hesitant yes vote if there were really only 217 others.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Marcy Kaptur in particular seems to be vulnerable on her sponsorship of the language,
Kaptur’s vote is in character.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Well in Kissell’s defense, the GOP is targeting him for 2010. On the other hand, he does tend to vote a bit more conservatively than he needs to. This is just another example of why he deserves the label “conservative Democrat.”
November 8th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Setting aside that some of the no votes (as well as some of the yes votes) received campaign contributions from the health care industry, there is another reason why the vote was close. If you have 218 votes in the bag, you can then release the rest of your group to vote no. Kucinich is the perfect example. There is no doubt that if his vote was needed, he would have voted yes, but he was released to vote no in protest.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
The libs voted no because they promised they would. Pelosi denied Med plus 5 for the sake of the biggest impediment to abortion since Hyde.
Progressives got rolled; they were exactly right to vote no.
Remember “lefties are bluffing, don’t listen to them”? Well, they WERE bluffing.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
[...] in touting NY-23 as a Republican civil-war and party purge. They’re are now doing the same sort of thing concerning the 39 Democrats who voted “no” on Pelosi’s monstrosity (and the [...]
November 8th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
[...] in touting NY-23 as a Republican civil-war and party purge. They’re are now doing the same sort of thing concerning the 39 Democrats who voted “no” on Pelosi’s monstrosity (and those [...]
November 9th, 2009 at 12:02 am
[...] that the House leadership would give quaky Dems any cover. Matt Yglesias disagrees, however, and sees room for a little wiggle. And who knows? Maybe the House leadership and the White House think Dems can keep Larimer County [...]
November 9th, 2009 at 12:03 am
[...] that the House leadership would give quaky Dems any cover. Matt Yglesias disagrees, however, and sees room for a little wiggle. And who knows? Maybe the House leadership and the White House think Dems can keep Larimer County [...]
November 9th, 2009 at 1:53 am
Davis — you’re right that it’s in Rep. Kaptur’s character, but that has nothing to do with the way she has been positioned lately (especially since her “cameo” in Michael Moore’s latest). Her constituents will be ambivalent/upset, and people who had decided on lionizing her as a populist hero will be even moreso.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Of course a close vote also absolves the democrats for taking so long to pass the bill and absolves them of any particular part of the bill that the left doesn’t like.
Now if they had failed by a few votes, that would really be a huge failure. It would mean they were rushing it, or ideological, or just poor at counting votes.
In the end, the Senate will go the same way.
It is also possible that Obama doesn’t actually want a bunch of votes to spare, as that would indicate that he could have gotten more than he did. And some of what he could have got, he might not even want. Who knows?
But the WH has never been worried about passage. I think they know they will have to deal down to the end, but who are they willing to deal with?
After this passes both houses, the conference report is a near lock. Anyone supporting the original from their house will have to justify their ideological stuff which was cut from the bill as being more valuable than what remains.
Is that even possible? Not really.