Public Policy Polling: Why the Democrats *must* pass health reform
Alexander Arnakis
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/health-care-and-2010.html
The political repercussions for Congressional Democrats of not passing
a health care bill could be severe. Our newest national survey finds
that Democrats lead 46-38 on the generic Congressional ballot. But
asked how they would vote if no health care bill is passed respondents
split 40-40 between saying they would vote Democratic or Republican in
next year's election.
In some sense the Democrats may be in a damned if you don't or damned
if you do position on health care. Asked how they would vote for
Congress next year if a health care bill with a public option is
passed respondents said they would go Democratic by a 46-41 margin,
still more narrow than before any hypotheticals about health care
outcomes were introduced into the questions.
Here are a couple key takeaways:
-There is a price to pay with independents if a strong health care
bill is passed. Democrats lead 37-30 with them in general on the
generic ballot, but they say they'll vote 44-37 for the GOP if a bill
with a public option makes it through. Clearly some independents are
sitting on the fence waiting to see what happens with health care
before they decide how to vote next year and Democrats could push them
toward the Republican side by passing a bill without bipartisan
support.
-That said, the price to pay with those independents is not nearly as
bad as the damage Democrats would do with their base by not passing a
health care bill. Democrats get 86% with their own party on the
generic ballot if a bill with a public option passes. They get 84%
before health care is even mentioned. They get just 75% without a
health care bill. They have to get something done in order to keep the
party's rank and file voters in line for next year.
What's the big take away?
The political damage for Democrats of passing a public option is not
as bad as the damage from doing nothing. But they would still be
better off passing something that's not perfect than passing nothing
at all. Most voters aren't following this debate really closely and
don't understand the nuances of it all. At the end of the day voters
are likely to see this as either a bill was passed or it was not. In
some sense that should get the Blanche Lincolns and Mary Landrieus of
the world in line- they're probably going to face just as much trouble
back home whether there's a public option in there or not. But failing
that Democrats would still be better off, at least for next year's
election, with a weaker bill than no bill at all.
John Galt
> http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/health-care-and-2010.html
>
> The political repercussions for Congressional Democrats of not passing
> a health care bill could be severe. Our newest national survey finds
> that Democrats lead 46-38 on the generic Congressional ballot. But
> asked how they would vote if no health care bill is passed respondents
> split 40-40 between saying they would vote Democratic or Republican in
> next year's election.
Uh, only 38% of the voters want the Senate bill to pass. Ergo, passing
the **SENATE** bill dooms the GOP.
We have a "question verbage disconnect", here.
Wrong. Lincoln are Landrieu are not subject to the whims of the national
voters. Surprised the writer missed this nuance.
But failing
> that Democrats would still be better off, at least for next year's
> election, with a weaker bill than no bill at all.
That's something the GOP would agree with. Hence, the total opposition.
JG
>
Stephen Adams
>http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/health-care-and-2010.html
>
>The political repercussions for Congressional Democrats of not passing
>a health care bill could be severe. Our newest national survey finds
>that Democrats lead 46-38 on the generic Congressional ballot.
I call BS. See:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
where Republicans have a 6 point lead among likely voters. Rasmussen
was rated as most accurate during the last election cycle. And Gallup
has Republicans ahead as well.
I'll also note that Obama's negatives are getting far worse : 42% now
strongly disapprove of Obama, with only 27% strongly approve. He's
down to less than the Democratic base! That's a -15 on the approval
index, the lowest it has ever been. His overall approval rating
(somewhat or stongly approve) is 45%. Which matches the lowest level
he's had.
Overall, this is VERY bad news for Democrats.
>The political damage for Democrats of passing a public option is not
>as bad as the damage from doing nothing. But they would still be
>better off passing something that's not perfect than passing nothing
>at all. Most voters aren't following this debate really closely and
>don't understand the nuances of it all. At the end of the day voters
>are likely to see this as either a bill was passed or it was not. In
>some sense that should get the Blanche Lincolns and Mary Landrieus of
>the world in line- they're probably going to face just as much trouble
>back home whether there's a public option in there or not. But failing
>that Democrats would still be better off, at least for next year's
>election, with a weaker bill than no bill at all.
Lieberman has vowed no public option of any kind. That's pretty much
the end of it, given what we've heard from other Senators on the fence.
-Stephen
--
Stephen Adams
crathv...@tznvy.pbz (rot13)
John Galt
Then can still hit the "reset" button, pass the parts about (1) everyone
having to have a private plan, tied to (2) no cancellation and no
refusal on the part of the insurers, then push away from the table and
call it a day.
The only ones who could reasonably object would be the leftist who
viewed the entire thing as an opportunity for expanded government.
JG
Problem is that the
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>> http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/health-care-and-2010.html
>>
>> The political repercussions for Congressional Democrats of not passing
>> a health care bill could be severe. Our newest national survey finds
>> that Democrats lead 46-38 on the generic Congressional ballot. But
>> asked how they would vote if no health care bill is passed respondents
>> split 40-40 between saying they would vote Democratic or Republican in
>> next year's election.
>
>Uh, only 38% of the voters want the Senate bill to pass.
Where do you get that from this poll?
The same rationale applies to the voters in Arkansas and Louisiana.
That is, opposition to the bill won't get Lincoln and Landrieu any
points -- the people that are dead set against this bill wouldn't vote
for them anyway, but they people that are *for* the bill will oppose
them if they vote against it.
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Lieberman has vowed no public option of any kind. That's pretty much
>the end of it, given what we've heard from other Senators on the fence.
>
have leverage against him, on the one hand (they can expel him from
their caucus, and thus strip him of his chairmanships), and, on the
other hand, they have blandishments to offer him. The serious
negotiations with Lieberman won't, for tactical reasons, take place
until just before the cloture vote.
Same goes for the other holdout Senators. These people are playing it
very smart -- the ones that jumped onboard the train early have
virtually no clout now.
John Galt
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:48:56 -0500, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>>> http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/health-care-and-2010.html
>>>
>>> The political repercussions for Congressional Democrats of not passing
>>> a health care bill could be severe. Our newest national survey finds
>>> that Democrats lead 46-38 on the generic Congressional ballot. But
>>> asked how they would vote if no health care bill is passed respondents
>>> split 40-40 between saying they would vote Democratic or Republican in
>>> next year's election.
>> Uh, only 38% of the voters want the Senate bill to pass.
>
> Where do you get that from this poll?
Read too fast. The 38% number is attached to the congressional version.
The people who are dead set against this bill *have* voted for them in
the past, else they would not hold office.
JG
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>
>Then can still hit the "reset" button, pass the parts about (1) everyone
>having to have a private plan, tied to (2) no cancellation and no
>refusal on the part of the insurers, then push away from the table and
>call it a day.
>
>The only ones who could reasonably object would be the leftist who
>viewed the entire thing as an opportunity for expanded government.
>
which everyone can agree) is tied to your #1. That leaves us with
individual mandates to buy private insurance. Besides (probably) being
unconstitutional, this would be opposed by most progressives, and it
would be an absolute poison pill as far as the voters are concerned.
And if you have mandates, you have to provide subsidies. This makes
your proposal as expensive as the current bill -- with the twist that
taxpayers' money would be going directly into the pockets of the
insurance companies
At least with the public option, the taxes can be justified as
covering a public expense -- although, to the degree it has already
been watered down, it would be a token justification.
I say, if we can't get at least a public option, kill the whole thing,
get a Republican Congress and President at the next elections, and
wait for the next backlash when they make a mess of things. That will
also have the benefit of purging the Democratic Party of the
ConservaDems and the waverers.
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The political repercussions for Congressional Democrats of not passing
>>>> a health care bill could be severe. Our newest national survey finds
>>>> that Democrats lead 46-38 on the generic Congressional ballot. But
>>>> asked how they would vote if no health care bill is passed respondents
>>>> split 40-40 between saying they would vote Democratic or Republican in
>>>> next year's election.
>>> Uh, only 38% of the voters want the Senate bill to pass.
>>
>> Where do you get that from this poll?
>
>Read too fast. The 38% number is attached to the congressional version.
>
No, 38% is what the Republicans would get on the "generic
Congressional ballot" (as opposed to 46% that would vote for the
Democrats). That's before the voters were asked to consider the
outcome of the health care bill. If *no* bill is passed, the "generic
ballot" goes to a tie. In other words, people are judging the
Democrats based on what they can get accomplished.
>
>The people who are dead set against this bill *have* voted for them in
>the past, else they would not hold office.
>
The health bill wasn't an issue in previous elections. Remember,
Blanche Lincoln was last elected in 2004.
No matter which way she votes, she's probably dead meat in 2010. She
therefore has a choice -- to act like a Democrat and do what's right,
or to vote as the health insurance lobbyists want, and thereby nail
down a job on K Street after she loses the election.
Stephen Adams
>On 24 Nov 2009 14:27:01 GMT, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>>
>>Lieberman has vowed no public option of any kind. That's pretty much
>>the end of it, given what we've heard from other Senators on the fence.
>>
>It all depends on how set in stone this "vow" is. The Democrats do
>have leverage against him, on the one hand (they can expel him from
>their caucus, and thus strip him of his chairmanships), and, on the
>other hand, they have blandishments to offer him. The serious
>negotiations with Lieberman won't, for tactical reasons, take place
>until just before the cloture vote.
He was asked about this. He said "no way, no how" which does not sound
like posturing to me.
>Same goes for the other holdout Senators. These people are playing it
>very smart -- the ones that jumped onboard the train early have
>virtually no clout now.
Being seen as being bought off is an election death-knell.
Stephen Adams
>I say, if we can't get at least a public option, kill the whole thing,
>get a Republican Congress and President at the next elections, and
>wait for the next backlash when they make a mess of things. That will
>also have the benefit of purging the Democratic Party of the
>ConservaDems and the waverers.
Which, by the logic you use with regard to the Republicans, will make
the Democrats weaker and unable to win elections.
Alexander Arnakis
>Which, by the logic you use with regard to the Republicans, will make
>the Democrats weaker and unable to win elections.
>
I'm willing to allow a lot of latitude in the Democratic tent (for
example, pro-life Democrats, pro-gun Democrats, etc.). But health care
reform is the litmus test. If we can't get that, there's no point in
electing Democrats.
Alexander Arnakis
>
>He was asked about this. He said "no way, no how" which does not sound
>like posturing to me.
>
in the Oval Office. You "never say never" in politics.
>
>Being seen as being bought off is an election death-knell.
>
Mary Landrieu's getting $300 million more for Louisiana has to be seen
as a positive among her voters.
Any Democrat who's seen as "killing the bill" is a dead duck
politically.
Stephen Adams
Perhaps the country does not want it. Ever think of THAT?
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Perhaps the country does not want it. Ever think of THAT?
>
specifically the public option.
Pass the damn thing and then let's see what happens at the next
election.
v1_0
>
> Overall, this is VERY bad news for Democrats.
>
No.. this is very bad news for US. The Democrats will be pressured
into putting something - anything - into legislation so that they can
declare success. The proverbial ticking time bomb. Hot potato.
Bush did this to Clinton, who did it to Bush - who managed to get
Obama to accept the explosion. I would say it was masterfully done,
except Obama was the one that made it happen and not Bush. Obama
doesn't even have the "out" of blaming the previous administration for
a double dip economy, as he bought it "as is with no warranty implied
or otherwise". Poor guy. Bush used up all the easy distractions -
war, evil plots, aliens.
The republicans, on the other hand, smell the possibility of
democratic blood. With the added bonus of not having to help the
American people to get it. If they can stall long enough, the
democrats look bad. If they can stall it long enough to get to the
next election then they make the democrats look real bad, and may get
enough umph in the election to be able to kill it... again.
I'm sure the democrats fear this sort of thing. So will start to push
real hard to get a health care fix in place. And sacrifice any
values that they may have along the way, and make crappy compromises
just to get the votes. Likely they will intend to 'fix it' later,
but that's like trying to do engine work on your car while you are
running down the highway.
From either party, either outcome, the American people get the shaft.
-V
Stephen Adams
>On 24 Nov 2009 17:40:00 GMT, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>>
>>Perhaps the country does not want it. Ever think of THAT?
>>
>Surveys have shown that the public wants health care reform, and
>specifically the public option.
And I have surveys which show the opposite. It's pretty clear that
it doesn't have deep, widespread support.
>Pass the damn thing and then let's see what happens at the next
>election.
No way. These things, once passed, have a life of their own. This
one will accellerate the bankrupting of the country.
AGG
> Alexander Arnakis<inv...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>
>> http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/health-care-and-2010.html
>>
>> The political repercussions for Congressional Democrats of not passing
>> a health care bill could be severe. Our newest national survey finds
>> that Democrats lead 46-38 on the generic Congressional ballot.
>
> I call BS. See:
>
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
>
***You call BS with your own BS, huh? Rasmussen is a GOP polling
organization. Everyone knows this. Why pretend otherwise? Their poll
questions are loaded and they have this propensity to only poll
Republicans. It raises the eyebrows of a real thinking man when he sees
this singular pollster turn up results at odds with everyone else.
***Good one. But no cigar.
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
possible. It will then make it easier to roll back FDR as well. I
mean Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the general state of
health insurance is all broken. Whenever Bush or Reagan touched it,
they went after them. THis will create such a backlash we can attack
the whole thing together. FInancial regulation is the broader
framework of this. Most major fiascos in the entire past century have
taken place so that banks could peddle public debt.
My idea of an end product is a mandatory social savings account
(for pension, health, education, housing) co-managed by employe,
employer and government (history shows none can be trusted alone) but
also a simpler international financial regulation system without the
ability to shop for your own regulator. Also regulated industries
should be exempt from torts, because once the grubmint gets involved,
the decision making is not theirs and any torts would be
circuitous. eg: asbestos got into buildings because it was mandated.
No poliician or theologian will ever agree with me on anything, unless
I'm dead and they can stick words in my mouth.
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://www.panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm http://www.facebook.com/vasjpan2
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Phooey on GUI: Windows for subprime Bimbos]
Stephen Adams
You deleted the Gallup reference. They support Rasmussen. You also deleted
the comment about Rasmussen being the most accurate.
Typical lefty - facts are very inconvenient for you. Only Alex's poll
shows his outrageous claims.
Alfred G. Green Jr.
***Nothing of value deleted. Rasmussen is a GOP stooge through and
through. I wouldn't expect a Republicunt liberturd as yourself to
recognize the truth.
Stephen Adams
>Stephen Adams wrote:
>> AGG <a...@nospam.org> writes:
>>
>> You deleted the Gallup reference. They support Rasmussen. You also deleted
>> the comment about Rasmussen being the most accurate.
>>
>> Typical lefty - facts are very inconvenient for you. Only Alex's poll
>> shows his outrageous claims.
>>
>through. I wouldn't expect a Republicunt liberturd as yourself to
>recognize the truth.
You deleted the coroboration. But no surprise there. And name calling -
especially with a very offensive word - is simply more proof you are losing
and have become unhinged.
You can't handle the truth:
The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection polls (as reported on pollster.com).
1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)
1. Pew (10/29-11/1)
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
5. ARG (10/25-27)*
6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
20. Newsweek (10/22-23)
John Galt
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:42:57 -0500, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Then can still hit the "reset" button, pass the parts about (1) everyone
>> having to have a private plan, tied to (2) no cancellation and no
>> refusal on the part of the insurers, then push away from the table and
>> call it a day.
>>
>> The only ones who could reasonably object would be the leftist who
>> viewed the entire thing as an opportunity for expanded government.
>>
> The problem with this is that, as you point out, your #2 above (on
> which everyone can agree) is tied to your #1. That leaves us with
> individual mandates to buy private insurance. Besides (probably) being
> unconstitutional, this would be opposed by most progressives, and it
> would be an absolute poison pill as far as the voters are concerned.
I disagree. The "mass of voters in the middle" have no issues with it, I
don't believe. The ones that hate this idea are the libertarian
ideologues and the "progressives" who, for some reason known only to
themselves, think there is something evil about private health insurers,
despite the fact that most of the european countries they wish to
emulate HAVE private health insurance.
And, I have no doubt it can be CRAFTED to be constitutional. It might
take a bit of sleight of hand, but at the end of the day, you're simply
telling people than they cannot access a particular service unless they
spend some money. Hard to be more constitutional than that.
>
> And if you have mandates, you have to provide subsidies.
Some.
This makes
> your proposal as expensive as the current bill -- with the twist that
> taxpayers' money would be going directly into the pockets of the
> insurance companies
Complete rubbish. The thing that makes the current proposals so
expensive is that the plans that people would be required to have are
all Cadillacs. I am suggesting high deductable plans only -- perhaps
3-5B in cost tops, which coincidentally is about the same amount of
money that ERs spend each year providing care to the uninsured.
>
> At least with the public option, the taxes can be justified as
> covering a public expense -- although, to the degree it has already
> been watered down, it would be a token justification.
>
> I say, if we can't get at least a public option, kill the whole thing,
> get a Republican Congress and President at the next elections, and
> wait for the next backlash when they make a mess of things. That will
> also have the benefit of purging the Democratic Party of the
> ConservaDems and the waverers.
If the 15% of the US who are "progressives" insist on ideological
purity, the conservadems will become GOP and create a permanent majority.
Run the math. You'll never have 15% of the citizens, no matter how loud
they whine rather than work, ruling 85%. Progressive influence is today
at its apex for the rest of our lifetimes.
JG
>
John Galt
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:20:27 -0500, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>>>> The political repercussions for Congressional Democrats of not passing
>>>>> a health care bill could be severe. Our newest national survey finds
>>>>> that Democrats lead 46-38 on the generic Congressional ballot. But
>>>>> asked how they would vote if no health care bill is passed respondents
>>>>> split 40-40 between saying they would vote Democratic or Republican in
>>>>> next year's election.
>
>>>> Uh, only 38% of the voters want the Senate bill to pass.
>>> Where do you get that from this poll?
>> Read too fast. The 38% number is attached to the congressional version.
>>
> No, 38% is what the Republicans would get on the "generic
> Congressional ballot" (as opposed to 46% that would vote for the
> Democrats).
No. 38% is the level of support Rasmussen gauged for the congressional
bill. That's obvious from the citation.
That's before the voters were asked to consider the
> outcome of the health care bill. If *no* bill is passed, the "generic
> ballot" goes to a tie. In other words, people are judging the
> Democrats based on what they can get accomplished.
So, you think if the Dems pass a bill that only a third of Americans
favor, they'll be more popular for it? :-)
Please.
>> The people who are dead set against this bill *have* voted for them in
>> the past, else they would not hold office.
>>
> The health bill wasn't an issue in previous elections. Remember,
> Blanche Lincoln was last elected in 2004.
Not the point. The point is that any Dem senator in a red state got
elected by appealing (at that time) to the same people who are now
telling her to stand down on any public option.
>
> No matter which way she votes, she's probably dead meat in 2010. She
> therefore has a choice -- to act like a Democrat and do what's right,
....thereby creating another unfunded mandate that crashes the economy.
You really do need to learn how to use a spreadsheet, one of these days.
You can't put those numbers into it and conclude that the results are
"what's right."
JG
John Galt
> On 24 Nov 2009 16:55:52 GMT, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>> He was asked about this. He said "no way, no how" which does not sound
>> like posturing to me.
>>
> He may be singing a different tune after he gets the "woodshed talk"
> in the Oval Office.
Assuming he bothers to show up. They don't always, particularly when
they're mind's made up.
You "never say never" in politics.
>> Being seen as being bought off is an election death-knell.
>>
> Well, corruption is one thing, but "constituent service" is another.
> Mary Landrieu's getting $300 million more for Louisiana has to be seen
> as a positive among her voters.
>
> Any Democrat who's seen as "killing the bill" is a dead duck
> politically.
If a politician can be a "dead duck" because they voted the way their
constituency requested, then we are FUBAR as a nation.
JG
>
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>
>If a politician can be a "dead duck" because they voted the way their
>constituency requested, then we are FUBAR as a nation.
>
an example. If she bucks the Democratic Party and votes to kill the
health care bill, she's sure to get a primary opponent (the Lt. Gov.
of Arkansas is already making moves in that direction), and
contributions from the Democratic base will all but dry up. Even if
she survives the primary, she'll be "damaged goods" and fall easy prey
to the Republican in the general. The progressives will stay home, or
even vote against her out of spite.
I think Blanche Lincoln is probably a dead duck no matter how she
votes on this, but the damage to her will be less if she goes along
with the Dems at least on the cloture vote.
Here's what the astute Nate Silver has to say:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
"If I were Blanche's Lincoln's Chief of Staff, my advice to her would
be as follows:
1. Vote for cloture.
2. Vote against the bill itself.
3. Articulate this position clearly.
4. And then Shut The Hell Up.
"Of course, it's probably not possible for Lincoln to avoid the
spotlight entirely: she occupies a somewhat unique position as the
only Democratic Senator under serious re-election threat in a McCain
state. I'm sure that Lincoln would rather that this whole health care
thing had never come up for vote in the first place. But given that it
has, and that it is much too late for the Democrats to adopt any sort
of exit strategy, I would tend to want to minimize my role in the
process. Part of that means staking out a clear position, because an
undecided vote attracts unwanted attention. And the path of least
resistance would seem to be committing to voting for cloture, so that
the Democratic base, your colleagues in the Senate, and the national
media don't go nuclear on you -- but against the underlying bill,
which is unpopular in your state. Dithering, on the other hand, gives
pretty much everyone the opportunity to be unhappy with you. And the
polling evidence shows that if you give your voters an opportunity to
be unhappy with you on health care reform, they probably will be."
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:20:27 -0500, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> The political repercussions for Congressional Democrats of not passing
>>>>>> a health care bill could be severe. Our newest national survey finds
>>>>>> that Democrats lead 46-38 on the generic Congressional ballot. But
>>>>>> asked how they would vote if no health care bill is passed respondents
>>>>>> split 40-40 between saying they would vote Democratic or Republican in
>>>>>> next year's election.
>>
>>>>> Uh, only 38% of the voters want the Senate bill to pass.
>>>> Where do you get that from this poll?
>>> Read too fast. The 38% number is attached to the congressional version.
>>>
>> No, 38% is what the Republicans would get on the "generic
>> Congressional ballot" (as opposed to 46% that would vote for the
>> Democrats).
>
>No. 38% is the level of support Rasmussen gauged for the congressional
>bill. That's obvious from the citation.
>
You're now bringing in data external to this particular discussion. We
were talking about the Public Policy Polling data. Rasmussen is highly
suspect, but let's not go there.
>So, you think if the Dems pass a bill that only a third of Americans
>favor, they'll be more popular for it? :-)
>
>Please.
>
We're living on different planets. The polling I've seen shows that a
large majority of Americans *favors* the health reform bill.
John Galt
And I've seen nothing but the opposite, and I read all I can.
JG
>
John Galt
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:53:17 -0500, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> If a politician can be a "dead duck" because they voted the way their
>> constituency requested, then we are FUBAR as a nation.
>>
> You're forgetting the primary process. Let's take Blanche Lincoln as
> an example. If she bucks the Democratic Party and votes to kill the
> health care bill, she's sure to get a primary opponent (the Lt. Gov.
> of Arkansas is already making moves in that direction), and
> contributions from the Democratic base will all but dry up.
In Arkansas? I disagree. I would guess that the Democrat base in
Arkansas is not anywhere NEAR majority supportive of the current health
care bills.
An Arkansas Democrat is about the same as a New York Republican.
Even if
> she survives the primary, she'll be "damaged goods" and fall easy prey
> to the Republican in the general. The progressives will stay home, or
> even vote against her out of spite.
You think there are progressives in Arkansas? Maybe a few dozen, but I'm
not buying that they are anywhere near a voting bloc.
That's a wavering enough analysis so we can both be right. :-)
JG
>