Google Ads


Site Stats

MO-Sen: Carnahan Continues to Eke Out Lead Over Blunt

by: Crisitunity

Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:14 PM EST


Rasmussen (12/15, likely voters, 9/21 in parentheses):

Robin Carnahan (D): 46 (46)
Roy Blunt (R): 44 (46)
Some other: 4 (2)
Not sure: 6 (5)
(MoE: ±4.5%)

If there's one thing everyone can agree on about the Missouri Senate race, it's been polling remarkably consistently; with the exception of a GQR poll from April, it's always been either a tie or a couple-point lead for Democratic SoS Robin Carnahan. That's partly because races are always close in deeply-polarized Missouri, and also because Carnahan and Republican Rep. Roy Blunt are pretty well-defined in voters' minds already. Look for these two to stay closely locked all the way through to next November -- although if you ask me, if there's one place where we might actually gain a Senate seat somewhere next year, it's here.

The two even have remarkably similar favorables: Carnahan's at 51/43, while Blunt is at 50/43. Barack Obama's approval is at 47/53 (with the requisite 1% unsure for a total of 101%), indicating that Carnahan's personal popularity associated with the family name helps her overperform the Democratic brand a bit.

RaceTracker: MO-Sen
Crisitunity :: MO-Sen: Carnahan Continues to Eke Out Lead Over Blunt
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
MO-Sen: Carnahan Continues to Eke Out Lead Over Blunt | 119 comments
on the one hand i understand that each candidate is well defined in the voters minds
on the other hand, it seems weird that so few are undecided a year out.  haven't a lot of rassys polls shown few if any undecideds?

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
Yes
I believe they do push leaners harder than other pollsters.
[ Parent ]
This is making me bi-polar.
We go from looking like we're going to get a bloodbath (e.g. Dina Titus' seat) to some really promising polls (e.g. North Carolina, Missouri)

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
Hey
Better than all one way.
[ Parent ]
I think we'll be ok
if we pass some health care bill and the economy improves somewhat.
[ Parent ]
I highly doubt a healthcare bill will pass now
I love progressives, but sometimes they act like whiny babies.  Like right now.  They think it would be better if no bill were passed at all.  They now want this bill dead.  FUCK THAT!

Words cannot describe how angry I am right now, but nate silver does a pretty good job at doing it.

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

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

[ Parent ]
Nah
Since when do Dems listen to the netroots and Howard Dean? They'll pass a bill.
[ Parent ]
Sure, blame the progressives.
Blame the ones who stood by the bill, not quietly, but still stood by it for most of this year.  Blame the ones who've advocated a politically popular option.  

Blame us instead of the conservadems who've destroyed the bill to the point where it's a political suicide pact (mandates to buy private insurance, protecting increased charges for seniors, allowing insurance companies to operate in states with weak laws and operate under those laws to subvert stronger state laws, and costs more than the bill with the public option).  That's all going to look really good to voters.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
If this bill fails, even if its the most conservative bill ever written
It gives republicans firepower for the 2010 elections.  The death of HCR in Clintons first term marred his entire agenda, lead to spectacular losses in both houses, and pretty much forced him to move to the right, and became a centrist president rather than a slightly left of center one.

I DO NOT want this to happen to Obama, the worst thing that can happen now is that Republicans make large gains in both houses, showing wingnuts that their views are viable.  We need retain seats, if not gain seats in the senate to make some real changes around here.

Don't think I don't want this bill to a Public option or anything, I do, but I just don't see it as viable in the senate right now, what has to happen is that we boot out the main twins when they are next up for election, boot Grassley for a Tom Harkin Democrat, boot Burr, Win Missouri, Kentucky, Florida and Ohio.  If we win even a fraction of those seats, it will be much easier to get real reform through

THAT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN IF DEMS HAVE NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT!!

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

[ Parent ]
Thanks but no thanks
ALL the concessions so far have been to accomodate conservadems and Snowe.  We even nixed the public option in return for a Medicare expansion/Co-ops/PO Trigger and progressives went along.  The conservadems pretended to agree to that then stabbed us in the back.  There is no recourse for progressives/mainstream Dems but to draw a line in the sand and say no.  No more concessions.  This process cannot be ALL give and no take.
[ Parent ]
Also
There are loopholes galore.  Think the lifetime caps are gone?  Wrong.  Think insurance companies won't still be able to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions? Wrong.
[ Parent ]
Again, pass a bad bill and see what happens.
Voters aren't going to go for a mandate to buy private insurance with fines for failure to do so.  They're not going to be happy when they find out that their states' protections are overruled because the insurance company operates in a different state.

Oh, and again, blame the conservadems and our feckless leaders for allowing it to reach this point.

Kill this bill, salvage the good parts.  Otherwise, we're fucking ourselves and risk losing FAR MORE.  

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Exactly
I'd go along with passing the bill minus the mandates and revisiting the bill at a later date to tweak/add some things.  But with the mandates and ZERO option of going with a non-private healthcare plan it's nothing more than forcing people onto crappy private insurance plans.
[ Parent ]
That's a better strategy
if we kill this thing now we won't be able to salvage any of the good parts, such as setting up insurance exchanges (unless that has also been gutted from the bill).  Killing the bill will only give the teabagging crowd the idea they can attack us from any front and will fight even harder if we were to try and bring up the bill again (or for that matter any major Dem reform).  I think if we were to pass what we have and then revisit it in, say, 2011 and add in provisions like removing the antitrust exemptions we could significantly strengthen the bill.  It would be tough for the teabaggers to rally up again as the main bill would have already been passed and the hubbub would likely have died down.  Politically, this could give us cover.  Moreover, since the main part of the bill doesn't kick in until 2014 there's time to add on it/tweak it.

I'd rather not get into the merits of the bill as it's not toally germane to SSP, but from a political perspective scrapping the whole thing would likely backfire.  I'm saying once we pass it sunshine will come out of our ass, but politicians that seem ineffective are probably looked upon as the worst by voters.

[ Parent ]
Correction
I'm not saying once we pass it everything will be okay.  Missed a key word there...
[ Parent ]
The bill won't be killed
Mainstream democratic legislators just need to exert half the pressure conservadems are in getting some concessions of their own.  I think if mainstream/progressive dems in Congress take a firm stand the conservadems will blink and backdown on some issues.  It's definately worth the risk.  The conservadems (as much as they act like it) by and large want a bill to pass as much as mainstream dems and progressives do.  It's time for regular Dems in Congress to take a stand.  
[ Parent ]
That I can agree with
I think what needed to be done in the Senate was that Reid needed to say early on "if you piss on our biggest legislative initiative there will be consequences."  That means seniority and chairmanships should have been on the table.  Baucus, Lieberman, and Lincoln all enjoy chairmanships - if we had used that as a bargaining chip we could have nailed their feet to the floor.  Alas, Reid was probably too concerned that certain Senators would be too butt-hurt after facing such tactics that they would sit on their hands for future initiatives.  He may be right, but a bill this big needed him to go all in.
[ Parent ]
Can't Have Guaranteed Issue Without The Mandate
ChadinFL: I'd go along with passing the bill minus the mandates and revisiting the bill at a later date to tweak/add some things.  But with the mandates and ZERO option of going with a non-private healthcare plan it's nothing more than forcing people onto crappy private insurance plans.

You can't prohibit a pre-existing conditions ban without the mandate. If there's no mandate, then people will not sign up for insurance until they get sick (known as "adverse selection") and when they're better they'll drop it after their insurance has picked up the cost. This will result in ever higher premiums, requiring ever greater subsidies, and the whole thing will spiral out of control.

The only way to get guaranteed issue (no denials based on pre-existing conditions) is to spread the risk, which means requiring everyone to get insurance. Lose the mandate and you lose guaranteed issue. There's no way around that, even if most of the public doesn't understand it.

Whatever comes out of conference will likely provide substantial subsidies, expand coverage, and set up exchanges. There won't be as many votes for those items in 2011. I think we should get what we can now, and get whatever else we can get in reconciliation after 2011 when there will still be the votes for things like the Medicare buy-in. (I don't think the Senate will have the stomach to revisit the issue until then).

[ Parent ]
The Senate
won't have the stomach to revisit it for 20-30 years and we won't have so much presidential capitol (unless they do it Feb. 2012).  Making this one count is all we have.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
I don't understand why people are saying this
The Senate won't have the stomach to revisit it for 20-30 years

Why wouldn't they? If they start a program, why wouldn't they tinker with it? I really don't get it. Not that that's specifically relevant to electoral politics as much as legislative process, though.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
No will
This is a BIG bill and there's only a finite amount of time and energy Senators naturally have.  Look at previous presidencies.  Other than in times of emergency (FDR and Johnson) have we seen more than one really massive program passed through Congress.  Even with FDR, while he lasted until 1945, most of the New Deal work was done by 1935 and almost all of it by 1937, when the court-packing plan went awry.  Unless we get continuous landslides, which we may, over 20-30 years, we're not going to see a major revision of something this big.  Medicare/Medicaid is a 1965 creation...it's been tweaked with, but not fundamentally altered to be greater since.  The Civil and Voting Rights Acts have had some major emendation (especially around Title IX), but have stayed largely still since 1968 or, alternately, the mid-70s for women.  It just doesn't happen.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
Track Record Of Rejection Is Worse
The Civil and Voting Rights Acts have had some major emendation (especially around Title IX), but have stayed largely still since 1968 or, alternately, the mid-70s for women.  It just doesn't happen.

But it does happen. Social Security has been expanded several times since its conception. And no self-respecting liberal would have voted for the original bill. So it does happen that programs get revised and improved over time.

Moreover, those who propose tanking this bill because it's not good enough don't take into account the consequences of rejection. The track record of rejecting bills regarded as insufficient is even worse than of accepting them and trying to improve them. At least there are some examples of insufficient bills being improved over time (Social Security). But the instances of coming back to bills that have been rejected in hope of improvement is poor. Just look at health care: every time this issue has been taken on, it's taken a decade or more to come back to it, and each version has been weaker than the last.

Again, there is no inherent reason why Congress can't push for the public option and/or Medicare buy-in after 2010--especially if the left wing is up in arms about not getting it before then.

[ Parent ]
reply.
Moreover, those who propose tanking this bill because it's not good enough don't take into account the consequences of rejection.

That is patently false.  

I would venture to say that almost all of the bill's progressive opponents, myself included, know damn well that we will take a hit if the bill fails.  However, we know very well that the hit taken by passing a bad bill, especially in this form.  Mandates?  Fines?  Expensive?  Taxes on benefits?  Late in kicking in?  Allowing higher charges for older people?  None of that's going to go over well.  And it's not like the bill is done being gutted; Ben Nelson is proposing a Medicaid opt-out.  What else will get cut to sway Nelson or Snowe or Lincoln or Landrieu?

Again, don't blame the progressives who've waited and waited as the bill was stripped down to appease Republicans and conservadems.  Blame our weak leaders and the Republicans and conservadems that have them by the figurative balls.  It's not our fault the bill isn't worth saving any more and can't be supported anymore.

And second, salvage the good parts and pass them through most any means necessary.  Hold the vote open for a month.  Collect every committee and subcommittee gavel, put them around a sign saying "Yes" while another sign says "No" and has nothing around it.  Make the fuckers filibuster.  

Again, there is no inherent reason why Congress can't push for the public option and/or Medicare buy-in after 2010

To repeat what I've said, the attention for the issue among the leadership and most of the rank and file won't be there.  And they're probably not going to be willing to expend political capital on something that was so arduous and politically costly for a while.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
I Think My Points Remain Unrefuted
I made two basic points. First, there is some history of bills being passed that are improved over time, even if some are not. Second, the track record of ditching bills seen as insufficient in the hope of getting something better later on is pretty dismal. Trying to salvage the "good" parts just doesn't seem to work.

And I'm not placing any "blame" on the progressives. I consider myself one. But the political fact is that there were probably never 60 votes for things like the public option in the first place. That's no one's "fault."

As for the mandates, it's well-known that you can't get things like a ban on refusing people with preexisting conditions without a mandate.

What we have is a difference of opinion in tactics, not desired outcomes. Unless one thinks this bill is actively bad, I think passing it makes a better foundation for getting the other parts through reconciliation than not passing it, and I think the track records cited above provide a factual basis for that assumption.

And as for the attention issue, if Democrats do OK in 2010 then they can claim a continued "mandate" to move forward on those other aspects. If they don't feel the heat, then it's our own darn fault since those aspects should be the more popular aspects of reform. Conversely, if Democrats won't feel they can spend the political capital to return to the issue if the present bill passes, I don't see how they'd feel any more urgency to spend political capital if the bill fails; indeed, I think they'd be even more hesitant to do so.

[ Parent ]
dsimon
If you believe bills being passed over time gradually get improves why do we even need this massive bill?  We have had medicare for decades.  We don't need an entirely new bill to solve the crisis.  We just need to reform, improve and expand what we already have - medicare/medicaid.  This bill does some things good but damages the system in many other ways.  The key problem is that is cements the largely employer-based private healthcare system that is the biggest problem with our system.  Without either expanding medicare or creating a public option we don't get at the heart of the problem and build a foundation for a better system.
[ Parent ]
The Swiss and Koreans seem to do ok with their employer-based
universal insurance system.

Canada/UK is not the only model to strive for.

[ Parent ]
It's not just the public option/medicare now
Have you not read the news today?  Ben Nelson is demanding not just the coathanger amendment, but now he wants subsidies in the bill cut, medicaid to be optional for states (anotherwords any state with a republican government will opt-out) and many other things.  If these concessions are allowed it completely renders the bill useless.  Without the subsidies and medicaid expansion the bill does nothing but drives the poor and middle-class into unaffordable insurance with little subsidies to help.
[ Parent ]
Response
The Civil and Voting Rights Acts have had some major emendation (especially around Title IX), but have stayed largely still since 1968 or, alternately, the mid-70s for women.  It just doesn't happen.
But it does happen. Social Security has been expanded several times since its conception. And no self-respecting liberal would have voted for the original bill. So it does happen that programs get revised and improved over time.

Moreover, those who propose tanking this bill because it's not good enough don't take into account the consequences of rejection. The track record of rejecting bills regarded as insufficient is even worse than of accepting them and trying to improve them. At least there are some examples of insufficient bills being improved over time (Social Security). But the instances of coming back to bills that have been rejected in hope of improvement is poor. Just look at health care: every time this issue has been taken on, it's taken a decade or more to come back to it, and each version has been weaker than the last.

Medicare has existed for many decades.  If bills are so easy to be improved upon why are the right/conservadems fighting tooth and nail against ANY medicare expansion?  Medicare is the logical program to expand to achieve universal healthcare.  Ya, medicare also needs reform, but it's a great program overall.

[ Parent ]
That can't be more wrong
The issue will be revisted every Presidential election from now until there is a public option.  That is a slam dunk.
[ Parent ]
Health care will continue to be a huge problem for years
even if a UK style full single-payer plan were to pass for implementation next week.

Spending 16-17% of GDP on health care is not sustainable. Those costs wouldn't disappear overnight even with the greatest health plan.

It's going to take years, and a lot of significant tinkering to make health care work in this country. Doing nothing, even after a good plan passes, could bring this country towards financial trouble.

[ Parent ]
Medicare Buy-In Is Easy To Do
I see no reason why the Medicare buy-in proposal would have to wait 20-30 years. If it's popular, it could easily be done in the next Congress, and there would in all likelihood be majorities in the House and Senate to do it.

The private sector stuff will be hard to revisit because that stuff takes 60 votes in the Senate. But the public option and medicare buy-in wouldn't take as much arm-twisting since they could be done under reconciliation. And that should be possible even with the loss of some seats--that is, unless the 2010 mid-terms are a true disaster, which I think is more likely if some kind of bill doesn't pass at all this go-around.

[ Parent ]
Popular issues
The public option was popular.  But even then, it was fought off, including by senators and congressman from states and districts where it was popular (e.g. Baucus, Lincoln, Cooper (initially)).

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Maybe not that long, but this "we'll fix it later" stuff is wrong
One, the attention will go off healthcare to something else.  In other words, "We just did something.  Let's move onto something else."

Two, after months of town halls, political ads, and declining approvals, Democrats aren't going to want to touch this for some time.

To combine these two points, the minimum wage increase was a very popular thing that passed easily.  It wasn't enough.  But even with the popularity of the issue, there is no real, concerted effort to get another increase.

Three, we were probably looking at losses beforehand.  Add in all these provisions like mandates, fines, protecting increased charges for older people, etc. and your looking at more losses.  So, we'll come back with either a skittish Democratic majority or (far less likely) a Republican majority.  

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Paul Krugman agrees.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/...

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
Progressives should oppose the senate bill...
Sanders just came out and said he wont vote for the senate bill; which is a good thing. If enough progressives say they wont vote for the shitwater soaked bill, then the only way to pass health care will be through reconciliation. Meaning we wont have to cave to Lieberman's ego and spite, or Republican desire to see government fail.
[ Parent ]
This will be my only word on it
If reconciliation is a good idea, then it's a good idea to pass this bill and then, seperately, pass the public option, Medicare buy-ins, etc through reconciliation later. This whole "we needz to killz teh senate bill because it will magically allow us to pass a watered-down public option" is wearing thin.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
Can we do it later?
My impression is that it's this bill or bust.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
No
It's now or never.  That is why it's no important for people like Sanders to lay down the gauntlet and refuse to support the bill until conservative dems accomodate some real aspects of reform.  I'm not even talking about the public option but rather the deal (medicare expansion, etc.) which were negotiated and agreed to just days ago before conservadems stabbed us in the back.  I'm sick to death of progressives and mainstream dems getting attacked for trying to sabotage the bill when the conservadems are to blame.  Every time they agree to something they back off and stab us in the back.  The only way to salvage a good bill is for Sanders and a few other progressive Senators to flat out refuse support until changes are made in our favor for once.
[ Parent ]
That's what I meant
It's not a matter of trying again later, folks...

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
Agreed
I strongly disapprove of those liberals who post on other blogs who just want the bill killed to score some moral vistory over conservadems at the expense of HCR.  What I want is for mainstream dems and progressives in the House and Senate to stand strong against the conservadems in order to SAVE the bill and negotiate a REAL compromise rather than just giving the conservadems everything they want.
[ Parent ]
Well...
What do the names Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Robert Byrd, Russ Feingold, Kent Conrad, Kay Hagan, Max Baucus, Mark Warner, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Tim Johnson, and Byron Dorgon have in common? These 14 members would either definitely vote against a reconciled bill or are strongly likely to vote against a reconciled bill.

Starting from scratch (which is what reconciliation would do) is the same thing as killing this bill, the best hope for getting the public option is to pass this bill and then, independently, bring up a bill for reconciliation adding the Public Option, Medicare expansions, more subsidies, etc.

There is absolutely no reason, politically or procedurally, to scrap the bill that exists now and start all over again after Obama and the Democratic congress suffer a huge defeat (and make no mistake, it will be seen as a huge defeat).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
I never said reconciliation was the answer
I said I want a few of the good Dems in the Senate and House to stand up and force conservadems back to the table to get concessions before the bill passes.  If they stand up for once instead of giving the conservadems EVERYTHING they want they will force a real compromise.  This can be accomplished though talk before the final vote.  In fact it probably will happen.  I just don't think at the end of the day that the progressives in the house are going to vote lockstep for the crappy Senate bill as it stands today.  That's in addition to the possiblity that people like Burris and Sanders won't accept all of the current concessions to Lieberman and Nelson.  In the end the conservadems will have to blink and allow some concessions to the middle and left dems if they want this thing completed.
[ Parent ]
Not really
Nelson and Lieberman (to name a few) would be perfectly happy letting the bill be killed by liberals. I'm sure we can get some good things out of it, but I heard Sen. Sanders on Olbermann tonight, and he seems to be stepping back from his rhetoric quite a bit.

The reason why guys like Lieberman and Nelson and Landrieu and Lincoln and Snowe have so much influence is because they wouldn't be particularly upset if the bill dies. That's why all the compromises are happening, they hold all the cards and they know it (and really President Obama and the Senate Leadership understand it as well).

I think we can make this bill better, but probably not much better, and I also think that most of the liberals who talk a big game now will ultimately cave on the issue because, frankly, they do want a bill passed.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
Well my thoughts are...
A bill basically has to be passed; and passing the senate bill I think would be a  big blow to anymore movement or voting on other heath care related items. Though This is just an assumption.
[ Parent ]
What has to be passed?
Not the bill with no public option, no trigger, no repeal of anti-trust exemptions, no importation of drugs and no medicare.  It's conservadems who put us where we are with their lying and backstabbing on everything they agree to.  If it comes down to the current bill with none of the things I mentioned included versus nothing I'll take nothing.  

Otherwise we are stuck with the BOHICA Liebercare/Nelsoncare with mandates to buy privatized health insurance from the same people who rape and murder Americans every day with no public option recourse.  If this bill fails it's going to be because the conservadems demanded ALL give and no take from mainstream dems.

[ Parent ]
What precisely does the Senate Bill do?
What does the Senate Bill even do now?  No buy-in.  No Public Option.  It's a total shell.  I'm not even sure what's left.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
Read Nate

[ Parent ]
Okay, I just did
I'm not enthused, but I do agree there is a subsidy improvement over the status quo.  However, the optics here are a little distorted.  It's likely we won't get another crack at a piece of legislation this important and this major for another thirty years (it's like the Papacy...they've really got only one earth-shattering change they can make before the steam dissappears).  To almost waste it on marginal improvement is just plain foolish.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
Subsidies can always get tweaked too
Healthcare subsidies are NOT like Medicare and Social Security where everyone benefits and benefits are almost impossible for Congress to take away.  HCR subsidies are up to 400% of the poverty rate.  Republicans or conservadems can rather easily lower that whenever they want before and after the bill goes into effect.  Whose to say they won't drop it to 300% or 200% of poverty?  Then we are forced to buy private insurance with no assistance.
[ Parent ]
It was interesting reading everyone's thoughts
I am very unhappy with the mincemeat that's been made out of this bill and the fact that the start of the meager reforms will in many cases be postponed until 2014. I agree that the lack of palpable, major improvements in affordability and guaranteed coverage make this a very problematic bill for the Congressional Democrats to run on. But in terms of the broad scope of history, I recommend for everyone to look at this:

DailyKos: "You Don't Have The Stomach For Politics"

You will see that FDR and Johnson made decisions on domestic policy that killed people and delayed justice, yet we lionize them as heroes of liberal reforms now. It's quite unclear that that trajectory has changed.

How that translates to gains or (I think more likely) losses in 2010 is another matter, though.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
LBJ's #1 political insight was
half a loaf is better than none.  And that is absolutely true.  The only question here should be is this half a loaf, or actually a barrier to getting a bigger loaf.

I don't think that is SSP material despite all the posts, but my view is there is only one way for Democrats to lose on health care from a swing-state perspective, and that is to pass a poor bill.  It would be much better to put a great bill to a vote and lose than pass a poor bill.

This process was bumblefricked from the beginning (again, from a swing-state perspective).  This huge multi-headed bill that John/Jane Public have no idea what is in it is a disaster.  The single thing that should have been put forward first is a public health option to compete with the private companies.  This is widely supported by the public.  If that failed, we can run on that (including primarying Lincoln).  After that success or failure, then you do this bullshit (half a loaf) bill that no one understands outside of a bunch of wonks, while still aggressively promoting public health care.

[ Parent ]
It's no half a loaf
This bill greatly expands the privatized employer based healthcare system and does little to expand public healthcare which is the ultimate goal.  I don't want the private employer based system bolstered, I want it to collapse.  That won't happen without at least expanding medicare and/or a public option.

Even Wyden's healthcare plan is vastly superior to the one being proposed.  At least Wyden's plan destroys employer based healthcare and turns control of healthcare insurance to individuals.

Unless a compromise is made in the way or a medicare expansion or public option I can't see how this bill gets passed much less improves the current system.

[ Parent ]
One of the electoral challenges is to "sell" whatever we get
to defend the progress that is being made.

I think even the conservadem bill could be "sold" as progress towards a Swiss-type system. If I understand correctly, they resisted universality for

Sure, I'd prefer single payer ala Canada/UK, but even the Swiss are doing better with their universal insurance scheme.

Ds need to start selling what we get as a program that enhances our overall quality of life, by reducing costs and the numbers of uninsured.

Otherwise, the prevailing wisdom of an electoral collapse in '10 will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[ Parent ]
Well noone will notice
The biggest flaw of the whole bill is the fact that most of it doesn't get implemented until 2013 or later.  Almost nobody will see a significant improvement in their healthcare by the elections even if the bill is passed since almost nothing kicks in.  

That's what I'm worried about.  No matter how good or bad the bill is most folks are going to blame the reform for their still having shitty or no health insurance in the next election not knowing the reform hasn't started yet.  The stupid timeline that takes 4+ years to implement just to get a better hypothetical CBO score could be what takes down many Dems in 010.

[ Parent ]
I think both you and tietack are right
n/t

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Wyden's bill is not that different
than what the DeMints and Coburns want, that is to eliminate employer based health insurance and privatize it completely.  And it is superior to this corporate crap that both the current system and this bill continues to defend.
I really think I would prefer some of these right-wing teabaggers over some of these corporatist Blue Dogs and ConservaDems.  Not just for politics but even on the merits.
[ Parent ]
That's a little different from Wyden's plan
Wyden's plan doesn't involve much privatization. It just allowing consumers to decide what plan is best for themselves by taking away the tax breaks from companies and giving it to the individual.  That is a MUCH better system than we have now.  Instead of most people being forced onto company plans they don't like they can choose their plan by themselves on an exchange (with subsidies similar to the bill we now have).  My ideal scenario for a health bill would have been the Wyden plan with the addition of a public option on the exchange.  

Sadly Wyden's plan was never going to happen because too many people fear losing their company health plans, even when the plans stink.  And most people out there have no clue that their wages would rise significantly under a plan like Wyden's since few actually know what their employer pays for their health insurance.

[ Parent ]
It's not half a loaf. It's stale, poisoned bread.
I've already talked about why it would be difficult to "fix it later" and why it's potentially political suicide, so I won't repeat that again.  But some other things to think about are

1) you pass a bill doing harm, you risk turning people away from the idea of government intervention in healthcare, further setting us back

2) you jeopardize our credibility on the issue ("Both sides said they'd fix it.  We'll just get thrown to the insurance companies again.")

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Doesn't matter
Ben Nelson is sayign that even with the coathanger amendment he will still filibuster.  Now he wants subsidies cut, medicaid expansion cut from the bill and many more good things in the bill gone.  It's over.  I said it before and I'll say it again.  Every concession they get just leads to more concessions.  Ben Nelson, Lieberman, etc. are just going to keep demanding the bill be watered down every time they get what they want.  They don't want the bill passed plain and simple.  This bill might be dead.

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

[ Parent ]
Yeah.
At want point are the people still defending this bill going to draw the line?  

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
It's garbage
Every time more consessions are made to conservadems, they pretend to approve of the bill then they change their mind and demand more concessions.  The Senate bill as it stands now is garbage.  It's mandatory purchase of insurance from private companies with no public recourse.  Thankfully a few progressives have had enough and are taking a stand.
[ Parent ]
Get a grip
It isn't progressives who will end up killing the bill (if it happens), it's "conservative" Dems.  Every time the house and senate get a deal worked out the conservatives want more concessions.  It's ALL take and no give for Lieberman/Ben Nelson/Snowe, etc.  I'm glad a few progressives are finally standing up and trying to save this bill from becoming a handout to the insurance industries.  
[ Parent ]
Here's what should be done
1. Pass the conservaDem bill.

2. Pass a public option plus Medicare expansion by attaching to reconciliation.  But this needs to be done only after #1, because doing it together will get a filibuster on #1.

[ Parent ]
Not a bad strategy
the problem with solely relying on reconciliation is that you're putting all your hopes on the judgment of the Senate parliamentarian, and if he ruled against us we'd be screwed.  Plus, using reconciliation will likely mean sunset provisions would have to be added into the legislation (as it did for the Bush tax cuts), which is something I'm REALLY uncomfortable with.
[ Parent ]
This is the problem with Democrats
The Parliamentarian works for the majority and has no power on the Senate floor, formally speaking. If he gives you trouble, ignore him.
[ Parent ]
The Parliamentarian
is the reason why the Bush tax cuts aren't made permanent.  It's easy to flip the bird to parliamentary rules when you're in the majority, but members know they're tempting fate and are asking for trouble when they hit the minority again.  It's one reason why Republicans never went for the nuclear option over judicial appointments - guys like McCain publicly said that removing those kinds of safeguards would fuck them over once they became the minority again.  He was right - if they had done away with many of the filibustering privileges we'd have a way easier time passing this bill.
[ Parent ]
No
Republicans didn't kill the filibuster because Dems are too weak to filibuster anything and they knew it.  Almost all Bush's big bills went through with no Dem filibuster.  Meanwhile repubs filibuster EVERYTHING when they are in the minority.
[ Parent ]
Not true
Name me one major legislative accomplishment Bush made in his second term - that's due to filibuster threats from Democrats.  Social Security Privatization, extension of his tax cuts, revising NCLB, all went down due to Dem filibusters.

Sure, major Bush bills were passed in his first term without filibuster - Medicare Part D, the JGRRT, NCLB, Patriot Act - but that was when anyone who dared to say "boo" to the President was labeled unpatriotic and got cast out because everyone lost their goddamn minds after 9/11.

But please, keep up this meme of "Dems are too weak to do anything."  With supporters like that, we don't need Republicans as opponents.

[ Parent ]
Bush was a lameduck during most of his second term.
He was so unpopular even Republicans wouldn't go along with a lot of it.  And the last two years, he had a Democratic Congress.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Social security privatization
That never even had close to a simple majority in either House or Senate.  The filibuster threat didn't kill that plan, angry seniors did.
[ Parent ]
It could have happened
Bush and Rove wanted to ram that baby through, but the specter of filibusters prevented them from doing that.  As it dragged one, more and more seniors grew to disliking the idea and killed the effort altogether as GOP legislators got cold feet.  It's not too dissimilar from what Republicans are trying to do now.
[ Parent ]
Thank you for the history lesson
and the reminder of some of the potential consequences -

if we 'nuked' the fillibuster for the sake of HCR.

[ Parent ]
Good discussion y'all
I'm out for the rest of the day so I'll miss out on what the evening commenters have to say.
[ Parent ]
Maybe it should have been rammed through
if seniors (who gave 54% to Bush in 2004) didn't want that agenda, they shouldn't have voted for Bush (for many in part because of homophobia).  

Elections have consequences.  

[ Parent ]
Exactly
To the victor go the spoils.  If and when repubs are given majorities I have no problem with majority rules.  Elections do have consequences.  I'm not wure where in the Constitution it states a desire for supermajorities being required for passage in Congress.  Though I could be wrong.
[ Parent ]
To be frank
I'm really sick of Southern white elderly (who probably gave Obama very little of their vote) getting a free pass to vote GOP due to racism and homophobia and not having to pay the price with their Social Security.  Further I'm sick of subsidizing with my tax dollars the most socially conservative age group in this country and only getting reactionary values in return.  
I would like to force these people to choose between their racism and homophobia and their SS checks.  Between a Blue Dog conservative and a Jim DeMint, I would prefer a Jim DeMint because he would force them to choose.
[ Parent ]
And my original point still stands
ignoring parliamentary rules while in the majorty can be convenient in the short term, but politics is cyclical.  We will be in the minority at some point again in the Senate.  And if we set the precedent for removing such protections that are normally afforded the minority, you can sure as hell bet the GOP will break our backs with it at every opportunity and we would have zero recourse, since the GOP could always respond with the talking point of "the Democratic Congress changed the rules."
[ Parent ]
I hate the filibuster
it is anti-democratic and should go.  I supported the GOP effort in 2005 to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees.
[ Parent ]
I don't see how it would be any worse
than an aggressive gerrymander. This is the signature Democratic agenda item. I wouldn't break the law to pass it, but I would not hesitate to rewrite the rules.

I would ignore the Washington Post and the beltway bellyachers.  

[ Parent ]
Nobody cares about archaic things like a filibuster
I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Nobody knows what the hell it is to begin with.  I'll guarantee if a nationak poll was commissioned asking what a filibuster is more Americans will say it's a vacuum cleaner than a parliamentary procedure for 60 votes in the United States Senate.  And even when they do know I have no doubt a lot of Americans are appalled at the idea that "majority rules" (which most of us were taught in school) isn't applicable in our capital.  Even for those who worship the constitution it matters little since the filibuster is not mentioned anywhere in it.
[ Parent ]
First
The Senate parlimentarian (a GOP hire) needs to be fired and a new one brought in.  The GOP fired the Dem appointed pariamentarian in the past, no reason we can't do the same.
[ Parent ]
That still doesn't address the sunset provisions
It doesn't matter who it is, the Parliamentarian won't let something as big as the public option be made permanent strickly through reconciliation.  Is that something we're willing to risk down the road?
[ Parent ]
Yes it is.
The Public option is one of the most popular things in America right now. And when Americans have it and realize that Republicans were lying when they said the PO would destroy health care the PO will become even more popular. If republicans regain majorities then them removing the PO would bring them back to the minority.
And plus even if it is removed, the PO would of still helped millions of people during the time it existed.  
[ Parent ]
Sure they will
Right now we have a republican hired Parliamentarian.  Just hire someone loyal to the democratic agenda and fire the republican one.  That's what the republicans did when they were in power and it worked out well for them.
[ Parent ]
That GOP Parliamentarian
still forced sunset provisions to JGRRT (the Bush tax cuts).  That's how it got through, and even with a Democratic one it will likely be the same outcome.
[ Parent ]
It won't be that simple.
An expensive healthcare bill with mandates to buy private insurance isn't going to go over too well with anyone.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Maybe
Maybe not. If the economy is better and jobs are growing it won't be the issue of the day anyway.
[ Parent ]
Let's hope so.


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
The only reason I have insurance is because my employer subsidizes it
If my employer were not paying 80% of my premium there is no way I would pay for private insurance.  If the day comes that this bill goes into effect and I don't have employer provided insurance I will refuse to pay for private insurance.  They can try to fine me if they want but I'm not going to be forced to pay private insurers against my will without the option of a public plan.
[ Parent ]
the one sided elections from recent years might be part of it
it used to be during an election each side would win seats and one would get a net gain.  that changed in 06  and 08 where no dem lost their seat.  we'll probably win some seats and they'll win some, with a net rep gain of around 1-4.  ideally, if unemployment drops below 7% and obama rebounds we might break even or even have a slight gain.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
Senate 2010 will be a mixed bag
most years Senate elections the composition changes by only a couple of seats - 2006 and 2008 being the exceptions.  If we can get a net gain we'll be in good shape.  A 61-62 seat Senate is what I call a FYBNJL Majority, as in "Fuck you Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman" majority.  A FYBNJL majority would be so sweet...

One encouraging sign is that the Senators who make it through 2010 are likely to be strong incumbent holds in 2016, when it will be a Presidential year and Dem turnout will be much higher.  

[ Parent ]
If I had to put a % chance I'd say
25% chance Dems have a net gain (likely 1-2 seats in that scenario)
15% chance it's a wash with no change
30% chance Repubs gain 1-2 net seats
20% chance repubs gain 3-4 net seats
10% chance repubs gain >4 seats
[ Parent ]
I think we'll pick up Missouri
even in a bad year.  If Blunt wins this race, we've probably lost at least 4 in the Senate.
Probably a good guide
Robin wins then it won't be a bad night but if she loses...
[ Parent ]
Yeah.
I think before it's all said and done, we'll have picked up Missouri, Ohio, and New Hampshire and lost only Arkansas.  

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
That's my prediction
if it is a good night, we'll have picked up North Carolina too.

And Blanche Lincoln is certainly expendable, she was particularly useless this year as it was.

My feeling is that if we had two fewer Democrats, health care would have went to reconciliation.

[ Parent ]
It's impossible to say
If we had two fewer Dems there might have been an even bigger push to go for Snowe/Collins.  Honestly, I can somewhat understand Ben Nelson's onstinance over some of these issues, as he does represent a ruby-red state and he genuinely seems like a conservative Democrat based on his prior record.  The two Senators that really piss me off are Lieberman and Lincoln.  Not only do they have comfortably large Democratic constituencies to rely on, and that their states wanted a much more robust bill, but they basically have gone back on previous stances.  All their hemming and hawing is simply for attention, and it kills me that while we have great progressives who stick their necks out in swing states like Sherrod Brown, the damn process is getting holed up by members from safe blue states.
[ Parent ]
Ya
Odd as it may sound Dems could really pickup a net seat or 2 in the Senate and lose 20-30 house seats.  Still, I'd gladly trade 15-20 house seats for a 2 seat gain in the Senate.  Especially so if Reid is one of our few losses.
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately
I don't think Reid will go down.  I badly want him to go down, but he'll run a negative campaign for the ages and get reelected.
[ Parent ]
I'd put Nevada and Conn ahead of Arkansas...
Polls show Lincoln ahead while Dodd, and Reid are getting smoked. Also I think Halter could make things interesting. Months down the line when he is better known he might be a better general candidate. I say this because of the anti-incumbent mood and Halters connections to Bebe who's somehow more popular then God down there.  
[ Parent ]
Ya
One thing that could save Lincoln is all the other Dems on the ballot.  As far as I know Beebe and every other statewide Dem up for re-election in 2010 in Arkansas are expected to win easily.  It would take a LOT of people to vote for all the Dems on the ballot and against Lincoln specifically for her to lose.
[ Parent ]
Those are blue states.
You would think an anti-Democratic mood would be less damaging in states with more Democratically-inclined voters.  There are more of them, so you can afford to have fewer peel off.  And they're going to be less succeptible to the anti-Democratic mood.  Plus, as blue states Connecticut and Nevada could be swayed with ads talking about Democratic ideals and how Dodd and Reid are supposedly for them while their opponents aren't.  Lincoln, coming from a blood red state trending away from us, doesn't have those advantages.  In other words, you can get pretty far by getting Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents to come home.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Really
We're just lucky the 2010 class in the only Senate class where Dems don't have a big advantage in seats and Arkansas (Lincoln) is our one and only seat in the south up.  

Had our 2012 class been up next year we'd be is serious danger of many losses.  The 2012 class has 26 Dems and just 9 Reps and many Dems are in red states and/or old Senators who might retire.  Hopefully the repubs nominate someone unelectable to challenge Obama in 2012 like Palin and we'll still gain Senate seats that year.  Even with only 9 GOP seats up in 2012 we have some juicy targets like Kyl and Ensign.  And Snowe is probably going to have to switch parties by then or else she'll lose the Maine primary.  

[ Parent ]
What's your evidence
that Snowe will be defeated in a Republican primary in Maine? That she's been more popular with Democrats in recent polls? I don't think that's close to proof. Is there any evidence that Republicans in Maine would support someone to her right, in order to get rid of her?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Yes, there is evidence
http://publicpolicypolling.blo...

Tough future for Snowe as a Republican

It looks like Olympia Snowe could have a pretty hard time getting nominated for another term in the Senate as a Republican.

There are now more folks in her party who disapprove than approve of Snowe's job performance. 46% of GOP voters think she's doing a bad job to 40% who give her good marks.

Snowe is still pretty popular with the liberal/moderate wing of her party, earning a 64% approval rating from them. But even in Maine 68% of Republicans are conservatives and they give her just a 29% approval rating with a 56% majority disapproving of her.

Asked how they would vote in a primary contest between Snowe and a more conservative challenger, just 31% of likely Republican voters say they would pick Snowe while 59% say they would go for the conservative alternative.


[ Parent ]
Good riddance
I would love to get rid of Snowe and Collins and replace them with party-line Democrats.  

Snowe and Collins are the worst of the lot, they pretend to be moderates but are just obstructionists and water down good legislation.  IMO, Snowe and Collins are worse than DeMint and Coburn, at least with the latter you can use them as political punching bags, rather than moderates who tease but never join.

My dream would be to see the Democrats full of liberal populists Barbara Boxers, Sherrod Browns and Bernie Sanders, and the GOP full of DeMints and Coburns, with the filibuster gone.  This would force the country to choose between two competing agendas.

[ Parent ]
Maine gets what they deserve
They had the option of electing a perfectly capable progressive in 2008 with Tom Allen.  I'll bet all those dems who voted for Collins regret it now.
[ Parent ]
I'd love to replace them, too
But your idea that the two Republicans who actually vote with the Democrats relatively often are the "worst of the lot" is just crazy to me. Those two are the two least-bad Republicans in the Senate - ergo, the BEST of a bad lot. The fact that they still suck shows how far to the right today's Congressional Republican Party is.

Meanwhile, though, I think the Democrats' strategy toward Snowe is likely to be:

(1) Continue to talk to her about supporting legislation the Democratic Leadership wants.
(2) Make clear that she is welcome to caucus with the Democrats any time she might decide to do so, understanding that people who switch parties or become independents caucusing with the other party usually change their voting significantly.
(3) Find a good candidate to run against her, or particularly, the right-winger who might beat her in the Republican primaries next time.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
Thanks
It looks like even in Maine, Republicans are more right-wing than I thought.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
The WaPo vote database suggests otherwise
http://projects.washingtonpost...

It has Snowe voting 60.9% with Rs
Collins voting 60.4% with Rs

If the detractors of the WaPo database are correct, that number is inflated by procedural votes.

If that is correct, then Snowe and Collins are both Ds in all but name.

[ Parent ]
You misunderstand
I'm referring to rank-and-file Republicans in Maine, not the two Senators, themselves.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
appreciate the clarification
If I remember right, you're the one who agreed with a similar point earlier.

I'm not sure other readers get the point, however.

[ Parent ]
I think there are two things some folks here don't get
(1) If Snowe or/and Collins defected to the Democrats, they'd probably be in or close the mainstream of their new party within a year.
(2) If the Republican Caucus were full of 40 Snowes/Collinses, things would be WAY BETTER, because the probability of getting 5-10 Republican votes for anything agreeable to the Democratic leadership would be quite high.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Not totally comfortable with a technical draw
if turnout goes like you could expect (knowing which voters are motivated), a MOE draw means a narrow loss.

The HCR bill polled at 57/40 against with 50/50 on the public option.

Nixon had a 63% job approval for some reason (I'd seen lower JA for Jay). Obama was at 47%, also surprisingly high for Missouri. I think Rasmussen's national polling for Obama isn't even 47% (not that he mentions that number over the strongly app/disapp numbers). What that says for this poll, or his national poll, is beyond me.

The only real advertising mentioning Blunt or Carnahan is the "Congressman Blunt, clean up your act" ads that are airing in markets outside of MO-7.

Considering the source
And the environment I'll take it.
[ Parent ]
Rasmussen: Keep Fucking That Chicken


20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)
hehe
I keep looking for an appropriate place to use that.
[ Parent ]
MO is toss up!
It seems MO is always a key swingstate.

I think Dems cuaght a bit of a break with Blunt as the GOP candidate though.

Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info:
http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com...

Could there be a more generic election in MO?
Honestly, I thought the Blunt name would be Mudd there at this point, though.  
MO-Sen: Carnahan Continues to Eke Out Lead Over Blunt | 119 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