US Politics: Thread #hbar

[Shryke]

Here's a new article from Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2273708/

While there's a bunch of stuff there about the Health Care bill and blah blah blah, the interesting stuff is at the top and what was being pointed out right after the election:

The Democrats that lost were mostly those who DIDN'T support the Health Care Reform bill and those in seats they barely won in the first place.

What you will quickly notice looking at the new numbers in the house is that the Blue Dog Caucus (ie - the conservative Dems) got gutted. The Progressive Caucus, meanwhile, is almost untouched.

Which lines up fairly well with the polling around the health care bill and the like showing that a large percentage of people were pissed that this congress wasn't liberal enough.

Also, here's 538 evaluating which polling agencies were any good: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/#more-3323

As expected, Rasmussen is heavily biased for the GOP.

Anyway, carry on!

[Shryke]

FLOW:

I understand exactly what "race to the bottom" means. What you're missing is that the choice of what policies employees are offered really is the employer's, not the insurance company's. The insurance companies will offer whatever is demanded by employers because otherwise, they'll lose business to companies that will. So the real question is whether such a change would encourage employers to race to the bottom.

Employer provided health care is an employee-benefit offered by employers to attract and keep employees. Employers don't "race to the bottom" on providing that benefit even now, because if they did, the "bottom" would be offering no health insurance at all. All this would do, besides lowering administrative costs, is give employers who currently can't afford to offer any insurance the ability to offer more more-stripped down policies to employees who otherwise would have nothing.

Raidne:

But...the whole point of creating state-based exchanges was to make health insurance available to individuals who are self-employed or otherwise without insurance. Exchanges don't even get going for small businesses until 2014.

Indeed Raidne. I don't know WTF you are talking about here FLOW since the across state lines push is to benefit individuals and small companies who can't negotiate teh way you say in the first place.

And again, this isn't really hypothetical since a race to the bottom was exactly what happened with the Credit Card industry. Delaware wanted the tax revenue, so they bottomed out their standards and all the companies moved there to take advantage.

[Horza]

Here's a new article from Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2273708/

While there's a bunch of stuff there about the Health Care bill and blah blah blah, the interesting stuff is at the top and what was being pointed out right after the election:

The Democrats that lost were mostly those who DIDN'T support the Health Care Reform bill and those in seats they barely won in the first place.

What you will quickly notice looking at the new numbers in the house is that the Blue Dog Caucus (ie - the conservative Dems) got gutted. The Progressive Caucus, meanwhile, is almost untouched.

Which lines up fairly well with the polling around the health care bill and the like showing that a large percentage of people were pissed that this congress wasn't liberal enough.

Also, here's 538 evaluating which polling agencies were any good: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/#more-3323

As expected, Rasmussen is heavily biased for the GOP.

Anyway, carry on!

I think it's more that the American public has no idea what's going on in Congress and so they assume it's whatever their pre-existing political biases would have them believe.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The Democrats that lost were mostly those who DIDN'T support the Health Care Reform bill and those in seats they barely won in the first place.

The majority of Dems who lost voted for the health care bill. If you think the article said somethign else, you're misreading it. As for those who "barely won" in the first place, you're right. Which is perfectly consistent with swing-district Dems being voted out because they're too liberal.

What you will quickly notice looking at the new numbers in the house is that the Blue Dog Caucus (ie - the conservative Dems) got gutted. The Progressive Caucus, meanwhile, is almost untouched.

Right. Which leaves you in the decided minority.

Which lines up fairly well with the polling around the health care bill and the like showing that a large percentage of people were pissed that this congress wasn't liberal enough.

Sure, a large percentage wanted Congress to be more liberal. Unfortunately, that percentage wasn't a majority. So you're left with a minority Congress of liberals in safe districts. I sort of wish Obama and the remaining Democrats would oblige you by pushing openly for even more social spending, and complete universal health care. That might give the 60 votes in the Senate and the Presidency in 2012. But I think they're smart enough not to oblige you on that.

[Guest Raidne]

The majority of Dems who lost voted for the health care bill. If you think the article said somethign else, you're misreading it.

Well, duh. 219 Democrats voted for the bill and 34 Democrats voted against it. Let's say only one Democrat voted against the bill...Wow! Then, like, it would be totally like the majority of Dems who lost their seats voted for the bill! Only one Democrat who voted against the bill lost his or her seat! Clearly the American people favored Democrats who were against the bill!

You're kidding, right?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, duh. 219 Democrats voted for the bill and 34 Democrats voted against it. Let's say only one Democrat voted against the bill...Wow! Then, like, it would be totally like the majority of Dems who lost their seats voted for the bill! Only one Democrat who voted against the bill lost his or her seat! Clearly the American people favored Democrats who were against the bill!

You're kidding, right?

Ask Shryke. It was his point. I was just making sure the facts were being relayed correctly.

[Guest Raidne]

Ask Shryke. It was his point. I was just making sure the facts were being relayed correctly.

No, I know what Shryke is saying - Skryke is saying that as a matter of probability, the election went better for Democrats who voted for the bill than it went for Democrats who voted against it.

I'm asking you what you are talking about it, because what he's talking about is the number that seems relevant to me.

It's like this - about 11 Democrats who lost their seats voted against the bill. Out of a total of 34 who voted against it. On the other hand, 24 of the Democrats who lost their seats voted for it. Out of 219.

So, out of Democrats voting for the bill, about 11% lost their seats. Of Democrats voting against the bill, about 32% lost their seats.

Of course, that makes sense, because Democrats who voted against the bill are more likely to come from conservative districts, and so are more likely to get tossed by their electorate for a Republican, but it also makes the narrative about the Health Care bill sinking the Democrats a little suspect, since it looks like about 89% of the Democrats who voted for the bill kept their seats.

I guess the number we'd really want are the number of Democrats from districts that were formerly Republican who voted for the bill and kept their seats. That would really tell us something.

Any takers on finding that data?

[Shryke]

No, you are trying to twist what I said.

The Democrats that lost were mostly those who DIDN'T support the Health Care Reform bill and those in seats they barely won in the first place.

It's one or the other.

Fully half the Democrats who voted against Health Care reform lost. (My numbers show 17 out of 34 Raidne) The Blue Dog coalition was halved. Conservative Dems got wrecked this election.

Beyond that, those who voted for Health Care reform and lost, lost by less then those that voted against Health Care reform and lost.

Right. Which leaves you in the decided minority.

"decided"? The GOP's majority isn't even as big as the Democrat's former majority.

Sure, a large percentage wanted Congress to be more liberal. Unfortunately, that percentage wasn't a majority. So you're left with a minority Congress of liberals in safe districts. I sort of wish Obama and the remaining Democrats would oblige you by pushing openly for even more social spending, and complete universal health care. That might give the 60 votes in the Senate and the Presidency in 2012. But I think they're smart enough not to oblige you on that.

Neither was the percentage that wanted Congress to be more conservative. You are confusing people with voters and, more importantly, confusing how you think people voted with what polls show about why they did.

More republicans came out to vote this time, due to things like the Tea Party, but this is exactly what you expect in a midterm after a presidential switch. People were calling it right after Obama got elected.

But most of the loses weren't about congress being too liberal. The big issue was jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.

But seriously, on your "Congress needs to be more conservative" thing, let's look at the polling for Health Care Reform, for instance, and you get numbers like this:

When asked about trying to “provide health insurance to as many Americans as possible,” 32% said that the plan goes too far, 35% said it doesn’t go far enough, and 22% said it is about right.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/12/cbs-poll-for-many-health-care-reform-does-not-go-far-enough/

Or here:

An HSPH survey conducted Oct. 1-12 found that while only 18 percent of registered voters believed the law should be implemented in its current form, 31 percent wanted Congress to amend the statute in ways that would increase the government’s role in healthcare. In contrast, 41 percent wanted to “repeal and replace” the legislation.

http://www.bnet.com/blog/healthcare-business/healthcare-reform-poll-nuances-show-it-won-8217t-be-a-big-drag-in-the-elections/2015

Which shows alot of support for these causes you think cost them the election.

Of course, the real story this election that the polls all show was .... jobs and the economy. That's what was most important to most people. Economy bad, party in power loses. That's as close as you come to a bedrock principle in political theory.

[Guest Raidne]

(My numbers show 17 out of 34 Raidne)

I probably had more undecideds in my data set, which I snagged from the Washington Post.

[Inigima]

Shryke,

I want to believe your analysis, but I don't think it bears out. It shows that districts that elected progressives like progressives, but conservative Democrats losing doesn't necessarily mean they were too conservative. It's possible those districts are hostile to progressives and voted for Republicans, the more right-wing option. I don't see how you can extrapolate like that based on the available evidence.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Shryke,

I want to believe your analysis, but I don't think it bears out. It shows that districts that elected progressives like progressives, but conservative Democrats losing doesn't necessarily mean they were too conservative. It's possible those districts are hostile to progressives and voted for Republicans, the more right-wing option. I don't see how you can extrapolate like that based on the available evidence.

This. The same is true on the GOP end. When Republicans lose seats, it tends to be in swing districts whose seats were held by more moderate Republicans. To infer from their defeat that voters rejected them for being too moderate would be just as wacky.

A couple of quickie points. I saw Chris Christie on Meet the Nation yesterday, and just love the way he came across. He won't run in 2012, but he left the door open for 2016.

Second, I saw that the President's press secretary made a big stink over the weekend when some members of the press were going to get shut out of a meeting that they had previously been told they could attend. Gibbs apparently jammed his foot in the door until he won the point. Good for him.

[Guest Raidne]

I want to believe your analysis, but I don't think it bears out. It shows that districts that elected progressives like progressives, but conservative Democrats losing doesn't necessarily mean they were too conservative. It's possible those districts are hostile to progressives and voted for Republicans, the more right-wing option. I don't see how you can extrapolate like that based on the available evidence.

It's also entirely possible that these seats were snatched from Republicans the last time around on Obama's coattails do to new voter turnout, and that these voters then didn't feel like showing up to vote for moderate democrats, or voted for third-party candidates.

The numbers are out there, surely, I just don't have the data. We'd have to see exit polling from the last election for those districts and for this election, and/or voter turnout demographic data for the districts that switched back.

Or it might be that Kaine just didn't feel like spending much money on those seats because those particular House members refused to vote the party line out of fear that would not be re-elected, which is, IMO, kind of what it seems like the White House is thinking about, given the lip service Obama gave to "understanding" how difficult it is to buck the polls in your District and the thanks he gave to a couple House members by name who did exactly that.

There are a lot of things that could be going on there.

[Shryke]

Shryke,

I want to believe your analysis, but I don't think it bears out. It shows that districts that elected progressives like progressives, but conservative Democrats losing doesn't necessarily mean they were too conservative. It's possible those districts are hostile to progressives and voted for Republicans, the more right-wing option. I don't see how you can extrapolate like that based on the available evidence.

And it's faulty to extrapolate the other way either. A mistake both you and FLOW are making here.

But again, it's not just about wins and loses, it's about how much you won or lost by.

To take an interesting example: Perrilio's loss vs Nye's. Both in Virginia, similar in most ways.

Perriello ran for Obama. Lost 51-47

Nye ran against Obama. Lost 53-42.

Nye lost by almost 3 times as much. And shit, Nye's district went more for Obama in 2008 then Perriello's.

Which basically shoots your idea in the foot. The guy running on a more progressive agenda did BETTER. If the problem was him being too progressive, it would show. But it doesn't. Because the big issue working against the Dems here was the economy (and the fact that it's a midterm and after a presidential switch and thus enthusiasm gaps widen)

And, again and more importantly, the question is what did people vote based on. And the answer that always comes back is the one you expect if you've studied this stuff: jobs. I can't harp on this enough. Jobs are what matters because most people vote based on how they are doing, personally. If they are doing badly, the guys in charge gotta change.

Basically, the Dems were down going in because the economy was down and it's a midterm. The GOP got their voters out and the Dems didn't (in large part because one side lacked any sort of cohesive message, with candidates running for and against the party's record in the same election year). Look at youth vote vs elderly vote numbers between the 2 elections and you can see the gap.

It's faulty logic to assume the same people are voting in every election and they've just changed their mind.

[awesome possum]

Basically, the Dems were down going in because the economy was down and it's a midterm. The GOP got their voters out and the Dems didn't (in large part because one side lacked any sort of cohesive message, with candidates running for and against the party's record in the same election year). Look at youth vote vs elderly vote numbers between the 2 elections and you can see the gap.

Come on now, you're just being a stickler. And besides, these "facts" you're posting goes against the grain of the current GOP talking point regarding the election: Republicans rule and Democrats drool!

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Or it might be that Kaine just didn't feel like spending much money on those seats because those particular House members refused to vote the party line out of fear that would not be re-elected, which is, IMO, kind of what it seems like the White House is thinking about, given the lip service Obama gave to "understanding" how difficult it is to buck the polls in your District and the thanks he gave to a couple House members by name who did exactly that.

There are a lot of things that could be going on there.

Normally, these kinds of dicussions are pointless, but in this case, it's pretty important because the explanations for the election results help inform the parties of what the electorate is thinking. If the Demos really think the problem was: 1) we weren't liberal enough, and 2) we just need to communicate our beliefs and ideals more clearly, then that counsels against compromising with the GOP at all. I'm all for another round of "chicken", so I hope the Democratic Party follows that plan.

[Shryke]

Also, looks like Murkowski is gonna win in Alaska.

Eventually.

After Miller litigates the ever loving shit out of her.

[Guest Raidne]

Normally, these kinds of dicussions are pointless, but in this case, it's pretty important because the explanations for the election results help inform the parties of what the electorate is thinking. If the Demos really think the problem was: 1) we weren't liberal enough, and 2) we just need to communicate our beliefs and ideals more clearly, then that counsels against compromising with the GOP at all. I'm all for another round of "chicken", so I hope the Democratic Party follows that plan.

Just curious, but what do you see Democrats compromising with the GOP on exactly? All the Republicans are proposing is to extend the Bush tax cuts and roll back part of a bill that *just* passed.

Also, I'm pretty sure the Democrats think the problem was a bad economy in a mid-term election where one major piece of legislation that passed has yet to take any effect and the other was designed to prevent things from getting any worse. I dont see anyone making any big strategy changes of any kind.

I'm pretty sure that this is the kind of situation where you just sit back and wait for the other guy to shoot himself in the foot.

[Shryke]

Just curious, but what do you see Democrats compromising with the GOP on exactly? All the Republicans are proposing is to extend the Bush tax cuts and roll back part of a bill that *just* passed.

Also, I'm pretty sure the Democrats think the problem was a bad economy in a mid-term election where one major piece of legislation that passed has yet to take any effect and the other was designed to prevent things from getting any worse. I dont see anyone making any big strategy changes of any kind.

I'm pretty sure that this is the kind of situation where you just sit back and wait for the other guy to shoot himself in the foot.

Well, you can expect at least some parts of the Democratic Party to go with the old standby of "Move Further Right". It's been much of the parties answer to everything since Reagan.

But, at the same time, the Blue Dogs got gutted and the Progressives are now the largest coalition within the Democrats. So that could balance it out.

Which is one of the big points of mentioning that. They party has lost most of the deadwood that was against the agenda of the party itself. If the Dems don't get too caught up in the media bullshit, the party could be more cohesive and better at pushing it's agenda, with not having to worry as much about Conserva-Dems.

Of course, this was never really much of an issue in the House anyway. The Senate is, and always has been, the issue.

Though now that the GOP controls the House, the Senate being the silent killer of all legislation works in the Dems favour.

[Inigima]

Shryke,

And it's faulty to extrapolate the other way either. A mistake both you and FLOW are making here.

What? I'm not extrapolating the other way, or at all. I'm saying you can't draw the conclusion you are, and that's all I'm saying. For your conclusion to be valid, it would have to be the case that the districts you're comparing are electorally identical, which they almost certainly aren't and which you definitely can't prove. You're attempting to make an argument based on one factor but ignoring other factors that are impossible to hold equal. Voters in different districts are... different people (one hopes!). If I'm misunderstanding your argument, or making an error of logic, please point it out, because I don't see it.

Raids,

There is a story going around right now about Cantor basically setting the bar for "compromise" at "Democrats take it in the shorts from Republicans." I don't see a lot of compromise happening in the Senate, unless it's of that variety. We'll see what the House looks like, there seem to be indications that Boehner may be somewhat less of a prick.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Just curious, but what do you see Democrats compromising with the GOP on exactly? All the Republicans are proposing is to extend the Bush tax cuts and roll back part of a bill that *just* passed.

Good question. To me, the "compromise" should be not letting disagreement on some issues prevent agreement on others. You don't dick with stuff unless you have a real disagreement. And I'm sure there will be some pretty routine stuff on which they'll agree.

But on your overall point, I actually agree that there is not much room for compromise on the core points of disagreement. One party wants to go east, the other west, so there isn't any "common ground". I think those disputes just get resolved however the legislative process plays out.

The real conflicts are going to be with the appropriations bills coming out of the House, and I do think the GOP has the strategic advantage here. Suppose the GOP sends out a bill that pays for some programs, but defunds or greatly cuts others. Do the Democrats reject the bill, essentially saying that nothing is better than something? That might be tough, especially if the GOP manages to swing a few Democrats in the Senate.