It's a bit difficult to reconcile the results of three questions from the new Washington Post/ABC News poll on health care reform:
16. Overall, given what you know about them, would you say you support or oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)?This is the Washington Post's attempt at interpreting these results:
Support 46%, Oppose 48%
22. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
Support 55%, Oppose 42%
23. Say health care reform does NOT include the option of a government-sponsored health plan - in that case would you support or oppose the rest of the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)?
Support 50%, Oppose 42%
But it is the public option that has become the major point of contention, with support for the government creation of an insurance plan that would compete with private insurers stabilizing in the survey after dipping last month. Now, 55 percent say they like the idea, but the notion continues to attract intense objection: If that single provision were removed, opposition to the overall package drops by six percentage points, according to the poll.This, I suppose, is the Occam's Razor interpretation. Even though a majority of people support the public option, its inclusion is a "deal breaker" for a decent fraction of the opposition -- enough that support for the plan increases overall if it is removed, even though some people (about 6 percent of "liberal Democrats") will cease to support the plan under those circumstances.
Without the public option, 50 percent back the rest of the proposed changes; a still sizable 42 percent are opposed. Independents divide 45-45 on a package without the government-sponsored insurance option, while they are largely negative on the entire set of proposals (40 percent support and 52 percent oppose). Republican opposition also fades 20 points under this scenario.
The decision to back away from the provision might hurt Obama among his base, but not dramatically so, as 88 percent of liberal Democrats support the reform plan as is, 81 percent without the public option.
However, this is not the only interpretation -- and it may not be the correct one. One problem is that both the poll and the article assume that the public assumes that the public option is the default condition of the health care reform plan. But as anyone who is following the health care debate knows, this is hardly a safe assumption. Some versions of the "proposed changes to the health care system being developed by Congress and the Obama administration" -- like the one which was passed by the House tri-committee -- include a public option. Other versions -- like the draft prepared by Max Baucus's Senate Finance Committee -- do not. And the President himself is on the fence. As a matter of semantics at the very least, it is not really proper to state that "If [the public option] were removed, opposition to the overall package drops by six percentage points," because it is not clear that the public option is in the package in the first place.
So what? -- I can hear you saying. At first the Washington Post asks a question about health care reform without including any specificity about the public option. I'll take you at your word, Nate, that some people will start out by assuming that the plan in fact has a public option and others will not. But once you specify that the plan does not have a public option, support rises. Does that not nevertheless prove that punting the public option would improve the plan's popularity?
No, it doesn't. It's suggestive of that result, certainly. But it's a pretty far cry removed from proof of it. Let me explain why.
When you're specifying that the plan does not include a public option, you're really doing two things. Number one, you're taking the public option off the table. But number two, you're providing specificity. And what the health care polling has consistently shown over the past few months is that the more specificity you provide, the more support for the package rises.
I can buy that specifying that the plan would not include a public option would improve support for it. But it might also be the case that that specifying that the plan would include a public option would also improve support for it. The respondents may be reacting to the specificity more than anything having to do with the public option itself.
What the Washington Post should have done is the following: break their sample into two halves. To one half, ask again about the health care package, but specify that it will not include a public option. To the other half, ask again about the health care package, but specify that it will include a public option. Then compare and contrast. If the Washington Post had done this, it would not surprise me if support for the plan increased among both subsamples.
There is another problem too, which is that the second question on the public option -- question #23 -- omits a key word from the original question. The word in question is "insurance". Whereas the first question correctly stipulates that the public option is something having to do with government-provided insurance -- something which most polls suggest is popular -- the follow-up comes closer to implying that the government would become involved in the provision of health care itself, something which is probably not very popular. Since question #23 immediately proceeds question #22, the Washington Post probably assumes that people will retain the necessary context: the public option is an insurance thing, not a "government takeover" thing. But some people will not assume this -- because some people are very confused about health care reform. We know, moreover, that polling on the public option is extremely sensitive to seemingly small changes in wording. There are probably not a lot of people who will be confused by all of this -- but I assure you, there are some.
Basically, the Washington Post is assuming too much of its respondents -- making assumptions which might seem obvious in the Washington Post newsroom, but which might not be so apparent to the 1,007 random Americans that they polled.
From my vantage point, what the poll "proves", if anything, is that specificity will be helpful to the Democrats. They should either insist on the public option or remove it -- but keeping their options open may be doing little more than confusing the public. And the pollsters.
53 comments
I completely agree that Democrats need to keep focussed on the package. The way to combat right wing mistruths is to talk truthfully about what is in the bill, and how it will help the voters.
Very nice Nate. I'm confused about something though. If I'm reading the poll results correctly, it seems like the public is most in favor of the plan when the public option is included. An alternative interpretation (comparing the results from 22 and 23) is that support drops 5% when the public option is taken off the table, and opposition holds steady.
As I read it, this poll shows the public option itself to be MORE popular (55-42) than the rest of the plan with (46-48) or without the public option (50-42), even accepting the assumptions that Nate is questioning. And there is no more opposition to the public option itself than to the no-public-option plan.
It seems to me that manufacturing some special opposition to the public option out of these results requires arbitrarily dismissing the response to question 22. Which is what the Post does in the quoted paragraph.
What am I missing? Why does Nate not read it this way?
Nate, you really should start your own polling company. It would change the game. And I bet you could round up the seed capital in no time.
"This, I suppose, is the Occam's Razor interpretation. Even though a majority of people support the public option, its inclusion is a "deal breaker" for a decent fraction of the opposition -- enough that support for the plan increases overall if it is removed, even though some people (about 6 percent of "liberal Democrats") will cease to support the plan under those circumstances."
Sorry, but who are these mythical Republicans who'll vote for the bill under any circumstances?
Seems to me the public is mightily confused about substance of healthcare reform and what is in the Bill.
Few understand the actual elements of what "reform" is and fewer still understand the consequences.
Ignorance is not the sort of backdrop against which major policy intitiatives can be acheived.
Obama has squandered months talking platitudes and selling soft soap without educating the people about the real substance of the the Bill. He has proven himself a poor communicator as President even as he demonstrated extraordinary skills as a candidate.
This, I think, is attributable to the wrong-headed nature of his policies and his recognition that what he wants to accomplish (whether it be in healhtcare, the economy or the environment) must be accomplished by slight of hand and deception because at bottom he knows his polices are subversive to the America that we are and what our Founding Fathers intended.
Obama can only succeed if he fools us and the media allows it.
So far despite inept poltical opposition among the Republicans he is failing at this. His biggest mistake was underestimating the intelligence and perspicacity of the American people.
The more this thing is debated, discussed and dissected, the poorer the prospects for passage.
Prognosis negative for healthcare reform this year, except perhaps for needed medical insurance reform. There will be no big governemnt takeover or public option that will lead to a single payor system.
Say what you want about the policy bona fides of all that, Obama has really screwed up and shown extraordinarily poor leadership skills.
He sucks at being President.
petekent01 (on twitter)
The Republicans left in the northeast are a possible Aye for healthcare reform. But the much safer play for them is to continue to add dealbreaker after dealbreaker so that whatever gets proposed wasn't what they wanted and they can vote no.
"Olympia Snowe declared that she could not support the bill, even after Dems have agreed to her requests to have the public option removed, drug-price negotiating rights slashed, and additional funds diverted from the public school system directly into the offshore accounts of insurance executives. The sticking point? Sen. Snowe has added a requirement to rename Medicare as 'Olympiacare'. Majority Leader Reid said the issue was currently under consideration."
I think pollsters often overlook the possibility that people may hold two mutually contradictory or mutually inconsistent positions. Consider this poll on evolution:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-07-evolution-debate_N.htm
"Two-thirds in the poll said creationism, the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true. More than half, 53%, said evolution, the idea that humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, is definitely or probably true. All told, 25% say that both creationism and evolution are definitely or probably true."
"Prognosis negative for healthcare reform this year, except perhaps for needed medical insurance reform. There will be no big governemnt takeover or public option that will lead to a single payor system." - PeteKent
and which bill at what point ever contained a single payer system or government take over of healthcare? The legislation (public option, new regulations about preexisting conditions and lifetime/yearly benefit caps, personal/employer mandates for coverage, etc) has always been targeted more at health-insurance reform than health-care reform.
PK said
'Seems to me the public is mightily confused about substance of healthcare reform and what is in the Bill.
Few understand the actual elements of what "reform" is and fewer still understand the consequences.
Ignorance is not the sort of backdrop against which major policy intitiatives can be acheived.'
---------------------------------
Thats the most sensible thing PK has ever posted. (Of course it wandered off into complete garbage after that but hey ho!)
The problem with the rest of PK's post is that he seems to blame Obama for the ignorant miss truths being spread about the bill, as if it were Obama who posted about 'death panels' on facebook, or who has said that illegal immigrants will get money for abortions or whatever else.
I agree that Obama, and the Democrats have not done a good job at selling what the bill is about and why being against it is a bad thing. But I think Obama has done a pretty good moving forward with that in the last week. That process needs to continue, and needs to involve more than the President. People are confused about what the reforms are, because they haven't been told, and what they have been told is bad stuff.
But its ok. Now is the time for the hardsell. Now is the moment for all Democrats to be out there selling reform, and selling these reforms. Now is the time for Reid and Pelosi and Durbin and Hoyer to work out if there is any hope for a public option, and if not move on for now.
Look at Q 16 --> Q 23.
Support when a public option to compete with existing insurance companies is described rises 9 points, opposition drops 6 points.
Of us liberals, we are opposed to pretend reform, and in favor of real reform. No public option (or a delayed or restricted or "triggered" public option) is NOT real reform, if it does not compete with existing companies they will not reform. I would rather have nothing than pretend reform. With nothing the problem gets worse and the support for real reform grows.
Write your congressman and tell them if they vote for any bill without a public option, or if they support delay longer than one year, or support restrictions on usage or bargaining power, or support any trigger of any form on any public option, you will support any primary opponent they have and if they still win, withhold your vote in the general.
No reform IS better than pretend reform, and any candidate is better than a proven corporate shill working against the interests of their constituents. It is time to get tough, liberals.
Oops, I meant Q 16 --> Q 22!
Olympia Snowe is a big fake. she plays moderate but when her party needs her vote she usually gives it to them.
No republican in the senate will vote for this bill no matter what because they cannot allow Obama to suceed, it will doom them because the democrats delivered.
No matter what the talk is health care will pass because the blue dogs know if democrats fail they are going down no matter what.My guess is you may get a couple of votes in the house from the few republicans left in blue districts.
One for sure is Cao who took Jeffersons seat, a no vote he loses for sure a yes vote he loses most likely but it's his only hope.
"Prognosis negative for healthcare reform this year, except perhaps for needed medical insurance reform. There will be no big governemnt takeover or public option that will lead to a single payor system."
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you: the coming GOP spin.
This is exactly what we'll be hearing if a health care bill passes that doesn't include a "robust public option." That triumphant conservatives defeated a "government takeover of health care" and forced Obama to accept only "needed insurance reform," humbling his ambitions and amounting to a big win for the Republicans. The fact that Obama himself is lukewarm on the public option, as are many Democrats, and that almost no Republicans will vote for this "needed insurance reform" even if it doesn't include a public option, are all beside the point.
In a way, it's encouraging. The fact that we're starting to see conservatives laying the groundwork for post-bill spin means that we must be pretty close to passing actual legislation.
Question 22A seems pretty interesting to me. Support for a competing government insurance plan jumps to 76% if it is offered only to those who cannot get private insurance.
Nate:
It's a bit difficult to reconcile the results of three questions from the new Washington Post/ABC News poll on health care reform:
16. Overall, given what you know about them, would you say you support or oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)?
Support 46%, Oppose 48%
Unsurprising. Among likely voters, the opposition is higher. Folks have known about most of the downsides of Obamacare for weeks now. It appears that a plurality correctly disbelieves Obama when he claims that those downsides are "lies."
22. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
Support 55%, Oppose 42%
As we have discussed before, this hypo is nothing like the Obamacare legislation and is instead an intentionally misleading Dem talking point, thus there is no contradiction between one and two.
23. Say health care reform does NOT include the option of a government-sponsored health plan - in that case would you support or oppose the rest of the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)?
Support 50%, Oppose 42%
Here, folks are incorrectly identifying all the downsides of Obamacare with the "public option," when in fact the government mandates that will outlaw your current insurance and the health care rationing would still remain.
The Dem media has generally done an awful job reporting on the particulars of the Obamacare legislation, so respondent misunderstanding here is understandable. It is frankly pathetic when an entertainer like Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly cited to the pages of the Obamacare bill in his monologues when none of the major Dem papers have done so.
In the end, the only question that matters in this series is the first referring to the actual Obamacare legislation before Congress. Obama's speechifying is falling on deaf ears with about half of all adults and a greater percentage of likely voters.
The interpretation of this and all polls on this subject is obvious.
Tony C. touches on it but doesn't quite say it outright.
1) Any "health care reform" that does not include a public option is assumed by most people - correctly, in my view - to be likely to be nothing but a piece of crap that paradoxically adds some layer of of bureaucratic interference to the current system, in the ostensible interest of "saving money", and which actually ends up creating costs and delays. The public is not inclined to support such "reform".
2) Any reform that increases the availability of health insurance to the uninsured, and helps to prevent bankruptcies and care denials among the insured, either by making Medicare or even Medicaid more widely available (*which would save everyone money in the long run*) or by creating some new kind of public option, would benefit all Americans. There is very high support for changing the US system into an overall universal coverage system, and moderate majority support for expanding public coverage without full overhaul.
The US already has one of the very largest single payer systems in the world - Medicare. It's just that younger, healthier people, who are far cheaper to incrementally add, are locked out of single payer.
3) The reason why support for the type of reform I mention in "1)" goes up from 42 to 50 is question order bias. The question about a public option, which is quite strongly supported, biases the respondents to "support reform" whenever it is mentioned in subsequent questions.
I am not as "disappointed" in Obama as some others on this issue - I think he is trying hard to keep the "public option" idea at least alive enough to come back to, in the face of massive institutional opposition, and the he may be right that this is the best that can be done right now.
I am saddened but not surprised that enough Americans are stupid and evil enough that we fail once again even to vote ourselves a decent health insurance system - the only nation in the world that can afford it and doesn't have it. Those of us who have both a brain and a conscience can keep trying.
Sometimes people think of survey queations as precise cutting tools, when in fact at best they are more akin to sculpting chisels, and you have to take many strikes to get at the underlying form.
If you want to know what people think about a complex topic you have to ask a series or set of questions. There isn't one perfectly worded question that will reveal the truth. Instead a battery of questions, or multi-item index or scales, give a more reliable estimate of what the respondent thinks.
And there's another problem. If you ask a question about "the health care plan that Congress and the administration" are concocting, a large part of the answer has to do with what the respondents think about Congress in general or the administration in general. It's not about health care, it's a question about support for the leadership or institutions.
You probably get better results when you don't lard the questions with references to either Congress or the administration but focus only on the specific elements of health care reform that are under consideration.
Bart de Palma -
Ironically, there is some truth to what you say this time.
However, the problem is that the "public option", which the public wants and which actually is part of Obama's initial proposal, is supported by 80-90% of Democrats and 0% of Republicans.
As has been the case on numerous issues in recent years, public will is opposed by a small minority of Democrats, and by ALL Republicans.
That certainly doesn't look like a strong argument for increased public support for Republicans.
A public option will be a huge success over time and will become as popular as medicare. Let's not put too much in current polls and see the long term picture. Although the GOP will never support it, Dems need to move on and pass this on their own.
Joel,
I agree with you that some form of health care reform bill will pass. That is why I don't really understand the Republican's play here. They have painted themselves into a corner. The way they have set this up is that if any bill passes, its a failure for Republicans. Obama will claim victory (and get credit) for any bill that gets passed, even a watered down version that most progressives will be unhappy about.
harold said...
As has been the case on numerous issues in recent years, public will is opposed by a small minority of Democrats, and by ALL Republicans.
The swing voters on this issue are the center right Indis, many of which voted for Obama, but are feeling buyer's remorse now. The Dems and GOP are minorities.
That certainly doesn't look like a strong argument for increased public support for Republicans.
I have been arguing this continuously for a couple weeks now. The Tea Party movement IS NOT a creation of the GOP. These are the folks who the Bush "Big Government Conservatism" GOP alienated in 2006 and 2008.
If the GOP wants these folks' votes, they need to get back to libertarian conservative first principles of limited government.
It seems to me that allowing younger people to buy into Medicare would shore up this wildly popular but financially troubled program. Since Medicare can provide coverage cheaper than private insurance, the rates for Medicare buy-in could be quite competitive and the trust fund would rake in BIG profits. No longer would we be talking about the trust fund going broke in 10 years, AND many more people would have affordable coverage.
What am I missing here?
If the GOP wants these folks' votes, they need to get back to libertarian conservative first principles of limited government.
Baghdad, that's a load of crap. The tea-baggers are safely in the GOP's back pocket.
@Harold:
Although I agree with your view that any reform without a public option (save one) is crap; I disagree on the "Obama trying hard to preserve the public option."
Every single time Obama, Axelrod, Emanuel, or any Obama minion publicly supports a public option, whether in a speech or in an interview, they immediately signal they are willing to throw it under the bus for something that does the same job. Every Single Time.
Of course nothing else can possibly do the same job and it is all crap, all smoke and mirrors to say it can, so this is a signal that the public option is now, and always has been, a fictitious bogeyman being used to scare insurance companies to the table. The Obama problem is that the fiction worked too well and now something like 75% of people are saying "Yes, Let's Do That!"
So what do you hear? Obama telling the joint session that the public option will be delayed four years, Obama telling a town hall that the public option is a "small sliver of the whole plan," Obama telling the joint session the public option was just a "means to an end," Axelrod on Meet The Press saying the President supports the Public Option but the most important thing is the Insurance Exchange and Competition (I saw it but don't recall his exact words).
Every time they mention the public option they hurry to diminish its importance.
As has been documented, the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals have threatened massive political support for Republicans if the White House allows a public option. This is not a fight over trillions in health care costs, this is a fight over a few hundred million in campaign contributions that could turn Obama's presidency into a Clinton presidency; with a House and Senate controlled by the opposite party. Rahm Emanuel knows this, Nancy Pelosi knows this, Harry Reid knows this, and Obama knows this.
They don't want to lose power, and that is why the public option is being diluted as fast as possible. It was an empty threat but people latched onto it as the actual obvious solution it is. All the evidence suggests Obama is ready to throw it under the bus, but his problem is the threat is backfiring. NOW liberals are saying (including me) that if there is NOT a public option there is no real reform. This is putting the Obama administration in a lose-lose position; if they support a public option they face very well-funded Republicans; if they ditch the public option they prove to a liberal base they are fronting for corporate interests.
THAT is why their "compromise" is now to delay it four years (giving them four years to make the case it isn't needed after all), to "trigger" it (with a trigger impossible to ever pull), or to cripple it (so they can say throw a party for passing it while making sure it will never be allowed to negotiate prices or actually compete head-to-head with any private plan).
The only alternative to a robust public option that will work is if insurance companies are forced to run like regulated utilities. Of course that ends the multi-million dollar salary/bonus train, so they will fight that tooth and nail to the bitter end, too.
The public option is dead...at least for now. The best option the public option crowd can hope for is the inclusion of a trigger that goes into effect (say in 2013), that creates non-profit co-ops if the private insurance industry fails to meet certain standards. This is what Senator Snowe is pushing for and which will likely be placed in the Senate Finance Committee bill. If the far-left liberals in the House insist on a federal government program they risk not getting any bill at all. This should be interesting, because Obama wants a bill badly, so it may come down to a showdown between Obama and the Liberal members of the House.
@BDP:
I contributed to Obama's campaign and voted for him, and I am disappointed in his performance on a wide variety of issues, but I have not got anything close to "buyer's remorse."
What was my alternative, a lying, cheating, philandering, corrupt McCain with is "soul mate" partner, the lying, vindictive, power-abusing and corrupt as the day is long Palin, who thinks that taxpayer dollars and campaign contributions are her personal piggy bank?
Give me a break. If the vote were held again today with all the information we have about Palin, Obama would STILL win by a landslide. Disappointment is not buyer's remorse; disappointment is relative to your expectations for the individual, while buyer's remorse is relative to your alternatives. The choice was either Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin and the majority of the country would take Obama/Biden in a heartbeat.
Tony C. -
Everything you say about observed behavior is 100% true.
We have a slight difference of opinion about the interpretation of observed behavior. However, there is no objective way to evaluate such interpretations, except to wait for future behavior.
My thinking is that if Obama really didn't want any public option, he hand no reason to even bring it, or health care reform, up in the first place. Therefore I assume that what we are seeing is an effort to at least till the ground. Again, this is currently a subjective interpretation of observed behavior.
And we agree with regard to observed behavior.
Tony C. -
Disappointment is not buyer's remorse; disappointment is relative to your expectations for the individual, while buyer's remorse is relative to your alternatives. The choice was either Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin and the majority of the country would take Obama/Biden in a heartbeat.
Excellent point.
Somewhat in tune with my earlier point that if all Republicans oppose what the public wants on multiple issues, and a minority of Democrats oppose what the public wants on multiple issues, that may cause irritation with Democrats, but not necessarily gains for Republicans.
Bart DePalma said...
If the GOP wants these folks' votes, they need to get back to libertarian conservative first principles of limited government.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If true, you and your fellow libertarians ;) should be screaming the loudest to bring the troops home immediately from Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, N. Korea etc. etc.
And how did that limited govt. work out for you during Katrina?
The rub for Reps is they own Iraq and Afghanistan till the end of time, just like Obama will own the health care bill when it passes.
Yes Virginia, Reps have a proven record on limited govt. from 1981 to 1993 and especially 2001 to 2009 ie gigantic deficits, national debt, privacy violations, torture, Terry Schiavo, gay rights, etc.
This is what happens when a party associates themselves w/the religious right. The have to literally and figuratively jump in bed ;) with them also ie school prayer, anti-gay marriage/rights, privacy violations, Schiavo, creationism, etc.
limited govt. my ass!
Again, the current Rep meme: We've screwed up consistently in the past re: limited govt., but you can trust us now lol.
and BDP, Sat one said: I have far better things to do than lurk here to watch you folks squawk. Come'on, admit it, you and Mule are the same person. ;)
Yea, Reps trying to argue now THEY are for limited govt. Too funny! Good luck w/that as you've had several opportunities to make a first impression ... Oops!
Bart, Reps arguing limited govt. is truly hilarious!
'nuf said!
Tony C. said...
@BDP: I contributed to Obama's campaign and voted for him, and I am disappointed in his performance on a wide variety of issues, but I have not got anything close to "buyer's remorse."
Tony, based upon our previous policy discussions, you are a true blue liberal and not even remotely among the center-right Indis to whom I was referring.
You libs will vote Dem regardless of how many times that party betrays you. If you claim otherwise, I expect you to stay home or pull the lever for the Greens in 2010 after the Dems betray you on the public option and cap & tax over the next few months. I will not be holding my breath for that to happen.
Libertarianism is Bankrupt ANYWAY.
Thirty six years ago in high school I was enamored of libertarianism and its associated free markets, then I matured enough to understand it is totally unworkable in practice, founded in theory that doesn't work in the real world, and morally bankrupt to boot.
Ayn Rand is a total dumbshit; even in her stupid novel, John Galt acts against his own best interests by going on strike in order to make a moral point, thereby disproving her entire premise.
Anyway, I grew up and became a liberal. Libertarianism is for idiots that have not learned anything new since the 10th grade.
shiloh said...
Bart DePalma: If the GOP wants these folks' votes, they need to get back to libertarian conservative first principles of limited government.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If true, you and your fellow libertarians ;) should be screaming the loudest to bring the troops home immediately from Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, N. Korea etc. etc.
I used the term libertarian conservative for a reason. I am pretty libertarian on domestic issues. However, I parted with the libertarians over foreign policy because they (like the post Vietnam Dems) are isolationists. I dare say based on my involvement with the Tea Party movement that most of them share my freedom loving hawk views.
@BDP:
As I have written my Democratic party Congressman repeatedly, if he votes for a health care bill that does not include a strong public option, or if he votes for any bill that delays the public option by more than a year, or restricts the public option, or includes a trigger for the public option, I will physically and financially work for any opponent he gets in the primary and if he wins that anyway I will vote for the Republican.
And I will. There is no chance the Dems will lose the House in 2010, but my guy is on the bubble, and I'd rather be openly misrepresented than lied to by a corporate shill. I told him that too, and signed my name so he can look up the contribution I gave his campaign in 2008.
And if the Republican wins, at least that opens the door to electing a REAL Democrat that supports liberal principles.
I'd rather have nothing than be represented by a lying bastard in the pocket of corporations; so think what you want but my mind is made up. If there is no robust public option the Democrats will be punished at the polls.
Cross tabs on this poll would be extremely interesting. Are they available? Can you use your media status to make them available Nate?
I dare say based on my involvement with the Tea Party movement that most of them share my freedom loving hawk views.
I dare say that most of you fascists probably voted for McSame. You don't need more fascist tea-baggers. You need more people who voted for Obama. That does not seem very likely.
"Dems need to move on and pass this on their own."
People always say this like we don't have about 10 dem in name only senators, Ted Kennedy is alive and well, and Byrd will make it to the vote.
This notion that tea party participants aren't by nature and by instinct Republicans is complete garbage. That's like saying MoveOn.org is not associated with the Democratic Party. Technically, yes. But there's a hell of a lot of overlap, to the point that politicians often fall all over themselves trying to appeal to these grassroots orgs, crafting their talking points specifically to appeal to their members.
On a related note, I've never met a die-hard Republican who didn't claim, in all seriousness, that he was actually "an independent." I had the chance recently to talk to a tea party organizer (who happens to be a member of my family), and I asked him: is everyone there a Republican? He got very agitated, insisting over and over again that he didn't know, that they were non-partisan, that they were mostly "independents." In almost every respect, I think, "independent" is code for "I have voted Republican since Nixon, and I plan on voting Republican forever after."
Tony C. has it down pat. I have to question, however, how many more Republican votes can actually be bought by industry support for red candidates. I think they already have most of the votes they're gonna get no matter how much campaign $$ they spend.
Tony C. -
I'd rather be openly misrepresented than lied to by a corporate shill
It's your business, but I don't follow that logic.
How is getting a Republican elected going to help prevent you from "being lied to by a corporate shill"? All it's going to do is subject you to worse lies from a bigger corporate shill. A corporate shill whose party openly endorses homophobia, "pre-emptive" war, etc, I might add.
Primary challenge, hell, yes.
Being so opposed to the Republican platform that you vote for the Republican? Trying to make the Democrats "more liberal" by showing them that the "conservative" gets the votes? Does not compute.
Health care is not the only issue, and even if it were, the Republicans are far worse than the Democrats on health care. The fact that neither is very satisfying does not change that.
Again, though, it's your business. I'm not interested in a flame war.
Nate,
As a student of polling, does it trouble you at all that every single MSM WILDY, VASTLY AND REDICULOUSLY OVERSAMPLES Democrats?
Both Rasmussen and Gallup now agree, Democrats enjoy a mere 5 point party affiliation advantage in the electorate.
Yet, every single MSM Poll throws Democrats between a 10 and 25 point advantage. I believe this poll gave them 11.
As a student of polling, how do you seriously comment upon what is obviously a fraud?
P.S., The CNN "flash" poll after Obama's speech last week gave Democrats a staggering 23 POINT SAMPLING ADVANTAGE over Republicans. Again, does this not trouble you?
If America is so obviously in favor of the Public Option and Democrats control every branch of Government, why do they need to play games with the rules to get it passed?
Answer, because they KNOW that America does NOT support it and they don't want to get CREAMED in 2010.
Bill said...
"If America is so obviously in favor of the Public Option and Democrats control every branch of Government, why do they need to play games with the rules to get it passed?"
Excuse me? The previous 8 years we heard it called, "Up or down vote. All we need is an up or down vote."
You certainly didn't complain about "need to play games with the rules to get it passed" then, did you?
brown said...
On a related note, I've never met a die-hard Republican who didn't claim, in all seriousness, that he was actually "an independent."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, after the last (8) years many of the few Reps who are left are truly embarrassed to admit they belong to the party of No!
As they should be ...
As Peter denied Christ not once, not twice, but thrice! I don't know those Reps, leave me alone! ;)
carry on
@Harold:
No flame war intended, here is my logic: The problem is one of progression. We progressive liberals are constantly told half a loaf is better than none; be happy with the compromise. But it isn't half a loaf, it is a tenth of a loaf. Then we can't get that, and we get a fiftieth of a loaf. Then we cannot get that either, and so on, until we end up with crumbs, and we are told crumbs are better than nothing.
After 35 years of this crap, I am sick of getting less and less, and I see it happening again with health care: Single payer is off the table. The public option is falling off the table. Reimportation of drugs is off the table. Using the purchasing power of Medicare, Medicaid, or a public option: Off the table. No matter WHAT party is in charge the corporate deep pockets get their way, and this "half a loaf" crap which is really just a crumb or two has got to stop.
And this is the perfect opportunity to stop it. The problem is incumbent congressman that think they cannot lose, so they don't have to represent their constituents. And the truth is that statistically, the House of Reprsentatives cannot change hands in 2010. So as Democrats, we risk NOTHING by voting for a lying, cheating, corporate shill Republican that will be 100% ineffective in the House, but that guy is just a placeholder. What we GAIN is the ejection of a corporate shill from our ranks, and an opportunity in 2012 to elect an actual liberal Democrat, because the previous Democrat will have been off the stage for two years and will no longer have an incumbency advantage, and despite name recognition, his name will be synonymous with LOSER.
If you re-elect the liar you have the liar forever, and it is impossible to make any progress toward our goals. I vote in every election on the full ticket and I have never voted for any Republican in my entire life, and I would not recommend this except that at this time, it is risk free.
And given that, if we Democrats own the White House, have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House, and we STILL cannot pass real liberal reform, we just need to bitch-slap some god damned corrupt incumbents.
Even if the current guy re-wins his seat in 2012, there is a good chance he will be chastened by sitting it out for two years.
Like I said: No risk. If the Democrat wins, a reduced margin will teach him a lesson. If the Republican placeholder wins, he will be a powerless voice in a Democrat dominated House, to be replaced in two years.
Two years worth of pain is worth a lifetime of benefit, and since I've seen liberal ideals thwarted for DECADES I am prepared to sacrifice two years if there is any chance it leads to some real god damned liberal change. Lives are at stake, both literally and figuratively. The amount of human potential wasted because of conservative principles (which amount to selfish greed and corruption) is astounding; about 80% of the people in prison should be productive members of society and about 80% of those in poverty could be as well.
It should be obvious by now that the fucktard Republicans are not our real problem; the problem is corporate money and corruption of lying scumbags that call themselves "Democrats" because that is what gets them elected and a slot at the corporate feed trough. We don't risk losing control by ejecting them, so now is the best opportunity we may ever have to teach them (and all House members watching) a very well-deserved lesson.
Harold, Please Read This.
Glenn Greenwald at Salon could not have put it better; the post is today's (Monday Sept. 14, 2009 09:15 EDT), Who are the undeserving "others" benefiting from expanded government actions?
This is the problem we must address.
Tony C. -
I agree with most of what Greenwald says, too.
But -
After 35 years of this crap, I am sick of getting less and less
Thirty-five years - yes, that is about exactly the length of time that the Republican party has exploited racial and social biases to trick large numbers of Americans into screwing themselves.
The problem is the right wing in general and the Republican party in particular.
We can agree to disagree, but that's the way I see it.
No matter how tired you get of baloney, a baloney sandwich is still better than poison. And if you can get the poison off the menu, maybe something better than baloney will be offered in its place.
@Harold:
And precisely how do you intend to get the poison off the menu? This is exactly the problem. Ideally we crush the Republicans into non-existence. Ideally we educate the simple-minded racist stump of that party into voting for the best interest of themselves and society as a whole.
HOW?
It is far easier to clean up my own lot than to convince my neighbor to clean up his; especially when (to extend the metaphor) my neighbor is convinced I am out to rob him blind, abort his grandchildren and turn his sturdy male heirs into prancing gays.
Liberal policies would fix that problem, but how do we get liberal policies if we keep electing corporate shills?
We cannot. Liberal policies cost corporations and the rich money. As long as we keep electing candidates that toady to the rich, we will never have a liberal government. The solution is to demand liberalism from OUR party, but those demands will mean nothing without a credible threat. That is the other lesson of the last 35 years.
Our fear of taking any losses has produced the biggest loss of all; a House full of Democrats in name only that throw us under the bus every time a lobbyist or corporate suit gets annoyed with them. We are so afraid of making any elected Democrat suffer any consequences for any action we let them do anything they want.
Not me, not anymore. I am only one vote, but if voting for a moron birther is the only way Congress will hear me, that is what I will do. This time, 2010, there is no risk and plenty of upside.
Tony C. -
I doubt if you're still here, but...
I have virtually no problem with what you are saying.
We are so afraid of making any elected Democrat suffer any consequences for any action we let them do anything they want.
I'm not.
The one thing I would disagree with is making "vote for the Republican" an element of making them suffer.
Look, it's simple. If you lived in a district where one candidate was a Democrat and the other was the monster from "Alien", and you were angry at the Democrat, you'd do primary challenges, protests, maybe even look at potential non-spoiler third party campaigns.
But it would never be acceptable to vote for the monster from "Alien".
In my not-very-long lifetime there have been sane and decent elements in the Republican party, but they have been kicked out, and today it is a mess of nut-jobbery, corruption, hate, hypocrisy, and last but not least, policies that will bring disaster, and fast.
For me, that party, in its current form has moved well beyond being a party I can support.
@harold:
I'm subscribed to the link, and I don't usually unsubscribe until the robo-spammers start posting (or whatever they are; I don't know how they get past word verification).
Anyway, your analogy is flawed, because even if a House Republican gets elected, from 2010 to 2012 they will be an ineffective alien. Republicans are not going to have any power for years.
I am sick and tired of voting for Democrats I know are corrupt just because they are the lesser of two evils and hoping, in vain, they will pass some liberal item on the agenda. And then, by virtue of my enabling vote, they are incumbents that cannot be unseated even by an actual, honest liberal.
The only solution I see is that at some point you have to accept some pain to get rid of the evil and leave the field open to an honest liberal; and the pain we must accept has never been less.
I admit I might chicken out in the booth, but then again, if I am not going to vote FOR somebody, I might as well vote against them and maximize the message of punishment.
This is just how negotiation works against reasonable people; one bite at a time, until as liberals we have been compromised down from $100 to pocket change. I don't see that changing without accepting some painful actions.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
электронная почта без регистрации
Post a Comment