Google Ads


Site Stats

Electoral politics of the public option

by: conspiracy

Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 7:49 PM EDT


I'm quite prepared to delete this if I'm breaking site policy but the topic seems relavant to me.

I've been fighting something of a lonely battle at Daily Kos arguing with people over the health care debate and real possibility of the Obama administration dropping the so called 'public option' in order to bring conservative Democrats in congress onboard in order to pass a bill.

Most have drawn their proverbial line in the sand and are committed to opposing any bill that does not include a robust public option. I have no doubt that many posters here at SSP also hold this position. I respect it but cannot agree.

This mcjoan diary from earlier today seemed to be totally off base and I said so.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

They are fixated on the polls that show support for the public option in theory but refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the polling that indicates the electorate has turned against the plans that are actually under discussion. As we all know perception is reality in politics.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/...

The reason I believe we can and should discuss this here is because of the real paradox that this has created. On the one hand Democrats in conservative districts won by John McCain or narrowly won by the president last year are clearly concerned about supporting a bill that is unpopular among their constituents. Their rationale is to remove the public option. But of course this is a sticking point for progressives particularly in the House.

I think this impass is a recipe for disaster. Though I don't think the health care failure in 1994 was the only factor in the Republican Revolution it was clearly the coup de grace after all the scandals and the contentious votes taken that cycle particularly on the budget and on the assault weapons ban. There is clear evidence that Dems in conservative districts that year who voted for those bills were likely to go down to defeat while those who voted no all survived.

Though the author is a bit of a winger and RCP in general leans conservative this article is quite persuasive.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

I know Dave Wasserman at The Cook Political Report has come to the same conclusion and Nate Silver posted a link to the article yesterday and made many of the same points.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

It is clear to me the pragmatic solution would be to find a compromise that can find the necessary votes in both chambers. Kossacks seem determined though to stand their ground even if it means no bill at all. What do y'all think?
conspiracy :: Electoral politics of the public option
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Electoral politics of the public option | 21 comments
What is the best strategy for vulnerable Dems?
Voting yes? Voting no? Can they survive no bill at all?
The best strategy for Democrats
is strength, unity, and good, effective, legislation--including the public option. Everything else is up to the economy (but that ship has probably partially sailed because the stimulus was too small).

2010 is a base election, and Democrats need an incentive to turn out.  

Looks to me like the economy will be fine
Decent signs across the board. I think positive job growth by next summer at the latest.

What is your strategy if Blue Dogs won't budge? I guess my main point though for bringing this here is the idea that Dems in conservative districts will lose by voting for something their constituents are opposed to. The evidence for that seems clear to me. And no bill seems like fools gold.

[ Parent ]
If the unemployment rate is
like what it is now, Dems will lose all over not matter what. So the first question is whether this is a U recession or a V no.

In the House, enough blue dogs have already voted for a public option in committee or come from blue districts to pass a strong bill. The obstacle is to some degree in the Senate, so the second question is, will Senate leadership have the mettle to go through with reconciliation?

Whatever ends up passing (and something will pass) is going to be difficult to pull off, and there's more political angst to come. So the final question is: will the legislation that's passed be popular? I think you need to consider the danger of giving the insurance industry the boondoggle of a mandate without an effective cost control (only rate caps or the competition from a public option can work, and Congress will not pass rate caps).  

[ Parent ]
It is kinda crazy
Obama being for no mandates and a public option and he might end up signing the opposite. All this could have been avoided with better messaging. Sigh.
[ Parent ]
A public option can probably be popular and effective
without a mandate, but not vice versa.

If it proves impossible to pass a public option, then "health care/insurance reform" should be dropped, and instead Congress should expand Medicaid and Medicare to cover more people. Heck, I think it would have been better politics and better policy in the first place to do just that (assuming you could cover everyone--and you could). But we had to have a grand bargain. . .

[ Parent ]
This may be an unpopular position here
but Obama shouldn't have pushed health care reform in his first year.  He should have spent 2009 working on the economy and its associated causes (foreclosure crises, financial industry reform, doing something about the massive personal debt) and changing our energy policy (with or without cap and trade).  Make the GOP oppose popular legislation (and re-regulating the financial industry would have been very popular).  Let the teabaggers protest financial industry reregulation (let's face it, the teabaggers are basically just anti-Obama and anti-Democratic, if Obama said the sky was blue, they would take to the streets to argue that it is really purple.) and have egg on their face.

Health care reform should have been put off until 2011, when you could hopefully gain a few more Senate seats and it is closer to a Presidential election year.    

[ Parent ]
Nuts
The big agenda items get passed in the first year or not at all.
[ Parent ]
Well FDR had his big year in 1935...

[ Parent ]
A different world

[ Parent ]
only because we let it be


Check out http://electioninspection.word... for the latest news, election results, poll analysis, and predictions
[ Parent ]
Perhaps
But the way to get back to that momentum is not by weakly pre-compromising and surrendering.  
[ Parent ]
Perhaps we need to go back
to that other world.  
[ Parent ]
Reconciliation won't work either
There are Senate rules that allow points of order to be brought up against items included in the reconciliation bill, which would then require 60 votes to overcome.

I'm with JSmith on this. Obama should have focused on economy and energy in his first 2 years, with health care coming in 2011.

I don't buy andgarden's argument about big items only passing in the first year. We forget that W got his prescription drug bill (an idea he had co-opted from the Dems and deformed to suit his purposes) in 2003.

[ Parent ]
The majority has discretion
over what is subject to that point of order. You are simply wrong on the procedure.  
[ Parent ]
Not quite
The rule I referred to, known as the "Byrd Rule" can only be waived by 60 votes, and prevents the addition of amendments that do not meet the germaneness requirement.

What you described is correct for the House, where the Rules Committee can waive the germaneness requirement. The Senate does not work that way. It is simply not a majority-rules body and never will be.

More on reconciliation can be found here:

http://www.rules.house.gov/arc...

[ Parent ]
I'm sorry, but you're just wrong
When you have a majority, install the presiding officer, and get to fire the parliamentarian, you have discretion over what is subject to a point of order.  
[ Parent ]
andgarden is right
If the Democrats wanted to, they could play really really ugly and force the health care bill through reconciliation, even if certain portions are against the rules.  It would get some really bad press, and the GOP may try to effectively shut the Senate down, but the Democrats could fire the Parliamentarian and replace him with a pure partisan.

[ Parent ]
That'll never happen
the media would have a field day.  
[ Parent ]
And?
Are the Democrats unable to weather a manufactured media storm in order to get something through that will be really popular and important?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Fair enough
Now that I've read a little more, I concede that andgarden is correct about many of those "roadblocks" being purely discretional.

As a practical matter, though, it's highly unlikely the Dems would take the steps JSmith mentioned. Maybe if Schumer or Mikulski were majority leader, but not with Reid.

[ Parent ]
Electoral politics of the public option | 21 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox