Nate Silver: 'Mr. Blue Dog, you have a problem on your hands. You're going to lose anyway.'

[seafan]

Nate Silver destroys the *our people don't want the public option* myth that the Blue Dogs are spouting:


July 23, 2009

.....

.....there's not really any evidence that health care reform is unpopular in the Blue Dog districts. Although there are exceptions, most of the Blue Dog districts are fairly poor. A Quinnipiac poll released earlier this month suggested that while 53 percent of voters overall think "think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health care", 61 percent of voters making under $50,000 do.

Also, while Quinnipaic did not break out the results for moderate and conservative Democrats, which are plentiful in these Districts, one can reasonably infer them. In this poll, 79 percent of liberals agreed with the statement as did 77 percent of Democrats -- not a very big difference. Since almost all liberals are Democrats and about half of all Democrats are liberals, that suggests that support for health care reform among non-liberal Democrats is something like 75 percent.

But suppose that Barone is right, and that health care -- or at least the current Democratic version of it -- indeed is unpopular in these districts.

Well, then, Mr. Blue Dog, you have a problem on your hands.

You're going to lose anyway.

If these voters are not capable of supporting health care, what other planks of the Democratic agenda are they going to support?

The carbon tax? Not rural, energy-intensive districts.

Maybe your constituents liked the bailout? Didn't think so.

Perhaps they're waiting for Obama to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act? Um, probably not.

The fact is, Mr. Blue Dog, there's a good chance that the reason you're in power is because George W. Bush was in power. When Bush was in power, you didn't have to advance your party's own agenda -- you just had to block some of the more unpopular elements of his.

But you don't have that advantage anymore. You're going to have to endure at least two more elections with Obama as your President -- and since the Republican candidates in 2012 are Dopey, Sleazy and Romney, probably four. You're going to start having to find at least a few things to vote for.

And if health care isn't one of them, it's hard to see what else is, at least in your sort of district.

Maybe you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. But the only world in which you are popular enough to get re-elected is one which this bill is popular enough for you to vote for.


Sincerely,
Nate

Stunningly accurate.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. K&R

[bluestateguy]

2. The Blue Dogs are the ones who will pay a price if there is no bill

People like Maxine Waters and John Conyers and John Lewis aren't going anywhere. Not with their districts. They don't need a bill for their reelection.

If there were to be a Republican "wave" in 2010, it wouldn't be the congresspersons listed above who would pay the price. It would be the people like Mike Ross and Heath Shuler. They are better off having a passed bill in hand that they can defend in front of their constituents, as opposed to no bill.

[cascadiance]

26. As they SHOULD! It's about time that the DINOs paid the piper!

[calimary]

44. Blue Dogs? I call Animal Control on Blue Dogs.

We need to put as much pressure on these weasels as we can. It's time for Democrats to start behaving as REAL Democrats should.

On second thought - anybody know ANY REAL Dems? Aside from people like Feingold and Boxer, that is...

I once contributed to Stephanie Herseth (now Herseth Sandlin) as she was trying to win the South Dakota congressional seat. I felt proud that I'd helped another woman, and a Dem, get into Congress. Since then I've gotten the Christmas cards, the wedding announcement, the baby announcement, and of course, continued appeals for contributions. Well, turns out she's fairly high-placed among the Blue Dog Coalition. I called her office the other day and asked her staff to tell her that I had been a regular benefactor even while not a constituent, but that my contributions have officially STOPPED COLD. I will NOT be sending ANOTHER NICKEL to someone who defies her party and The People, and The People's wishes - for universal health care. And I asked that they remind her she works for US, NOT for the insurance lobby. I called Dianne Feinstein shortly after Father's Day and told her staffer to ask her - "hey, Dianne, who's yer daddy? THE PEOPLE? Or the insurance lobby????

:banghead:

I only contribute to REAL Democrats, who act like DEMOCRATS, and not DINOs.

[cascadiance]

46. I remember earlier it said my new rep David Wu was "absent" on the Kucinich ammendment...

I was disappointed in seeing that and said so here on a thread that posted that.

I found out later at a local Washington County Dem meeting that this was an incorrect report and that he had in fact supported Kucinich's ammendment. I breathed a sigh of relief. They made a point of drafting a resolution that we will only support a health care reform act that has a meaningful public option at a minimum there, and even took the time to add an ammendment to specify that we expect our congressional delegation to support such in congress too.

A lot of people were frustrated with the mixed signals we're getting from Senator Wyden, and there's going to be a heavy letter writing campaign to his office from here that we EXPECT him to deliver for us on health care issues.

I find it interesting that he's mentioned as one of the six that's been sitting with the Blue Dogs delaying what's going on, and yet Ed Schultz, who's been very active on the grass roots side of things still routinely interviews him on his show occasionally.

It was also good hearing the Oregon House Speaker Dave Hunt speak to us on a number of things, including how they were hashing out the state budget, which sounds like its a lot better off than our neighbors in California and in Washington at this point, but still was a tough battle. They were trying to balance out the needs to raise revenue, cut costs in certain areas, and at the same time spend money in a focused fashion on generating jobs, especially when there was available federal stimulus money to help doing so. There was a lot of pressure from the business heeled lobbies increase taxes across the board, but they are focusing on just raising taxes on the more well to do folks over $350k salaries and leaving the rest of us alone...

Too bad that California can't take a similar approach to get things in balance. I'm still having an absolute nightmare trying to coordinate getting unemployment benefits between two states (California and Oregon) for a whole slew of reasons.

I think after this big battle over health care, if in fact we can get some real things accomplished in spite of the lobbyist pressures, and hopefully they will be VISIBLE pressures, so that the average voters can see their corrupt games for what they are, then we can use that effort to help us champion getting some meaningful pressure on congress to do public campaign finance reform too, which I think needs something like the health care reform mess to show WHY it's so needed now and can be used a way of rallying the troops...

The Blue Dogs and Blue Meanie Parties of NO! The real NOwhere men and women who stand against Main Street America!

[Ken Burch]

41. Just as it was in 1994. It was Dems who opposed Clinton from the right whose seats flipped

And what made it even worse was that the Dems who were nominated in the seat where anti-Clinton Dems had withdrawn lost after campaigning against Clinton from even FURTHER right, convincing black and labor voters in their districts that there was no good reason to bother turning out and voting for them.

It's almost as if the DLC WANTED to hand Congress to the GOP.

[RandomThoughts]

47. Thinking of them being defeated by republicans is weird

the issue being talked about in the OP is one the Republicans are on the same side as.

It would make more sense to think they would be defeated in primary, and any 'wave' is not an against government Republican wave, as much as against obstruction and corruption wave.

Although that would take a primary challenge.

[jody]

3. If "Quinnipaic did not break out the results" how can an intelligent person "infer them" for the

majority of voters in a congressional district that includes perhaps 260k constituents?

Facts are it's not just "moderate and conservative Democrats" who elected a BD Democrat but a mixture of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.

[bobbolink]

4. We could help push it along by being more PROACTIVE in these districts,

and publicizing their perfidy.

Will we?

Doubtful. :(

[redqueen]

6. Obama's fundraising org has already done so.

They're airing ads in Blue Dog states.

[bobbolink]

7. So, we have nothing to add?

Got Blue Cross Dogs here in Colorado, but there's no TV in my car, so I wouldn't know if there were tv ads or not.

Seems like we could do billboards, airing for all to see how much $$$$ RWers and Blue Cross Dogs get from Big Insurance and Big Pharma.

Full page ads in the papers.

I'm sure there are other things we could do, also, that would be stronger than what obama is doing.

[annabanana]

14. There are plenty of uninsured people in their districts that might like

some healthcare. I keep thinking of the throngs that line up whenever there's a "Healthcare Fair" in a field somewhere. . . If just a few of THEM camped out at district offices it would make an impression.

The Blue Dogs are trying to KEEP THE PRESIDENT FROM GETTING THEM HEALTH CARE!

[bobbolink]

42. If they would fight for it, the situation would be different, wouldn't it?

[tooeyeten]

39. "Blue Cross Dogs"

Pefecto!

[bobbolink]

43. I can't claim originality.....it was a caller on the Mario Solis Marich Show who coined it.

Now, even Ed Schultz is using it. :)

[redqueen]

5. Excellent analysis.

I hope those Blue Cross Dems get the message. Loretta Sanchez has already done so.

[Wednesdays]

8. K&R

:kick:

[jannyk]

9. ooooh kick!

[depakid]

10. Yep- it's exactly what a lot of seasoned observers have been noting

Makes you wonder whether these fools are greedy and unprincipled to the point of being self destructive.

[glitch]

12. Or maybe they see a lucrative career with an insurance lobby in their future.

Or maybe just a cushy retirement.

[DaveinJapan]

11. Spot on! Nate Silver rocks! n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. This is brilliant. n/t

[BlueIdaho]

15. Fed up with the blue dogs?

Tell Them

Contact the Blue Dogs:

Kristen Hawn

Communications Director

[e-mail]

[liberalhistorian]

16. I'm not sure that would be the case with my very own Blue Dog,

Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin. She represents our entire state, SD, and it remains fairly conservative, with the exception of the Sioux Falls area. I've communicated with her office several times regarding this issue, but she never has responded. She's caught between a rock and a hard place, frankly, being the only rep for the whole state. She's going to piss off people no matter what she does, so I wish she would quit waffling and just take a damned stand one way or the other already.

[Overseas]

17. K&R. Go Nate!

Those Blue Dogs just need to decide whether for-profit medical and health insurance funding for their campaigns or the needs of their constituents are more important.

[n2doc]

18. People are so brainwashed they think having health insurance is a bad thing

We shall see if people's personal experiences overcome the vast media resources of the HMO's and other health "care" companies. I've seen stories of people who would rather be broke and on the street rather than tax rich people for health care.

In any case, what will count are those who come out to vote next time. And what their options are. If no alternative is provided other than the blue dog or a repub, there will be no change for the better.

[midnight]

31. Or some who have it think that because they some how have it,

that it is their entitlement for some reason, and those who don't have it are lazy.

[DefenseLawyer]

19. That assumes people vote issues and not personalities for Congress

I don't that is generally the case. An incumbent that is thought of in the district as "one of us" and is well entrenched will get plenty of votes from people that have no clue where he or she stands on the issues. Combine that with the boatload of money in the warchest from special interests and most of these guys aren't worried about Nate's numbers.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. But if my blue dog loses he will be replaced by a republican

And that would be worse.

[seafan]

21. With a 255-178 House majority, it would be worth it to take out some Blue Dogs.

We have enough of a cushion to start removing them, not even considering putting the fear in the rest of them. With these people facing re-election every 2 years, we can make a dent in those who won't support the Democratic platform.

There is no room for those who call themselves Democrats, but who enable Republicans. The election of 2008 repudiated what Republicans represent. Leave no Blue Dog behind. It may take a few election cycles, but it must be done.


Congress by the Numbers, 111th Congress, 1st Session

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. He is the only Democratic representation I have

My senators are not just GOP but nasty GOP. And my blue dog and I are in agreement on far more issues than not.

I will keep him unless a progressive challenges him in the primary.

[cascadiance]

27. Yep, less f'd up committee chairmanships to worry about!

Baucus in the Senate is a clear example why DINOs being empowered with committee chairmanships are so damaging. Though we cannot afford to give up seats in the Senate, in the House in some cases it would be better that those districts with similar representation in terms of Rethugliness get relegated to a minority...

[backscatter712]

36. And the Blue Dog's different from the Republican how?

:shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. He supports a public option

The wingnut who ran against him last year didn't even know what SCHIP was and when it was explained to him he said it wasn't the government's responsibity to provide any health care at all.

I'll take my blue dog over any of the wingnuts who have ran against him.

[Bette Noir]

22. If Nate silver says it, it has to be true.

Please forward this to all our blue dog representatives.

[Arkana]

23. "Dopey, Sleazy, and Romney."

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

28. I lol'd.

[Demoiselle]

30. The 2012 Republican Pres Candidates. I love it!!!! (nt)

[optimal-tomato]

40. Maybe I'm dumb, but who's Sleazy?

Gingrich? Jindal? Pawlenty?

I'm assuming that Dopey is Palin, but she could also be Sleazy. Maybe Huckabee is Dopey and Palin is Sleazy?

[ThoughtCriminal]

25. Blue Dogs who rejected Health Care reform in 1993

How did they do in the 1994 elections? I haven't checked but I'm guessing that it didn't help. What 1994 proves is that NOT passing health care reform did more damage. If they had passed reform in 1993, I doubt Newt's revolution would have succeeded in taking control of Congress.

This isn't 1994. The public is WAY more fed up with private health insurance companies.

[cascadiance]

29. The Blue Meanie dogs party of NO!...

Get 'em out of here! Calling Doctor Robert!

[SalviaBlue]

32. K&R

[grantcart]

33. There is a greater problem for Blue Dogs

The only thing that they have going for them is their Brand - Democratic Party.


If they create an image that the Democratic Party is the party that can't shoot straight and can't govern then they will lose their biggest asset.


For this reason I think that we are hearing a lot of posturing and that in the end HC legislation will be passed by significant margins.

[Peregrine Took]

34. They are probably listening to the few squeaky faucet big mouths and

ignoring the needs of the "silent majority."

[varelse]

38. Money talks

could it be the only voice they still hear?

[LaPera]

35. Send to Ed (Schultz) for his MSNBC TV show - I guarantee Ed will mention it

paraphrase it or even quote the whole thing.

The on going blue-dog lies needs to be exposed as often as possible...even this little tidbit item of this thread is important....nationally, publicly for all, via television, (not just the Internet local newspaper or some AM radio shows but television where over 85% of the American people get their news).

Now if Schultz' gets the email he'll talk about the paid-off lying blue-dogs bullshit who are whoring for the insurance companies and not the people who put them there and pay all the governments bills, (our taxes).

Ed Schultz is the ONLY person on television keeping the health care public option in the forefront and not in hidden in the background like the republicans, many Dem's & the industry would prefer.

Rachel Maddow, she NEVER brings up the most important issue today bar none, Health Care with a Public Option for ALL on her TV show (If one don't have their health one doesn't have jackshit).

Rachel, (and her staff) I'm sure have great paid for health care, Rachel doesn't give a fuck about the 100 million uninsured people as a story, she just doesn't give a fuck about the issue for her show...

Maddow would rather talk about gossip...who's fucking whom, what politician is banging someone else, etc. etc....or an international story, anything, but THE extremely important issue of the day health care and Public option which the republicans are successfully getting rid of by their masters...the insurance corporations!

And Olbermann, well he'll mention the health care lies, deceit pay-offs and republican bullshit issue occasionally, but not much.

As for Ed Schultz his show usually start with the health care issue and can go into 2 or more segments....Ed is truly THE man keeping this issue alive on national TV without him it would of died on TV just the way the republicans, democrats 7 insurance companies wanted!!

[burning rain]

45. Nothing but net for Big Nate!

~

[bobthedrummer]

48. "the politics of trashing the single-payer healthcare plan" by Jerry Mazza (7-29-09 Online Journal)

"The politics of trashing the single-payer healthcare plan, or any other healthcare plan for that matter from Obama, have to do with the Republicans humiliating him so badly that they can recapture their power."

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4959.shtml

on edit:
"Inconvenient truths about the New Democrats, the Third Way, Democratic Leadership Council, etc..." (started 3-7-08)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2973191