Dem Wake Up Call: Reality Of Healthcare Reform and Getting Re-Elected
I have been saying that the numbers are pretty clear on what is missing from Healthcare Reform for a while, and is a political killer for Dem incumbents, has clearly been the fact that there was no public option in the final Senate bill that passed. All along the way you could see the politicians' numbers dropping like an anchor while the public option remained pretty darn steady in its popularity. While everyone is concerned about jobs and the government opening up the taxpayer's wallet to the greedy banksters, via Charles Chamberlain's diary, we get a pretty clear picture of what is pushing the people over the edge and will likely lead to a Dem salughter in the next elections:
This isn't just a strategy that makes good policy sense, it's the
key issue these Freshman Democrats need to pass to get reelected.
Here's the headline details of the voters Democracy for America and the
Progressive Change Campaign Committee had Research 2000 poll over the weekend.
FRESHMAN DEMOCRATS FACE TROUBLE IN 2010 IF CONGRESS DOESN'T PASS A PUBLIC OPTION
Polls in 10 frontline freshman districts show:
- 68% of voters want a public health insurance option
- By 5 to 1, voters want their Representative to fight to add the public option over simply passing the Senate bill
- By 3 to 1, persuadable voters are less likely to vote for
local Democrat if Congress doesn't pass a public option as part of
- 55% say Democrats need to do more to fight big corporations
- 6% say Democrats haven't done enough to fulfill Obama's 2008 campaign promises
- 52% of Democrats less likely to vote in 2010 if Congress doesn't pass public option -- Republicans more likely
These numbers are not a surprise to Americans out-side of
Washington, but you can be sure they are turning a lot of heads today
Those numbers are about as damning to the Dems as Senator Nelson's strategy to kill health reform should be by now. Via slinkerwink:
Here's the story below:
Now that the Democrats have only 59 votes--insufficient to overcome
a filibuster--Nelson is providing an inside look at his legislative
strategy. And it's...remarkable. Nelson famously insisted that, to get
his vote, Senate health care legislation would have to include
restrictions on abortion financing. Now, however, he says his
plan all along was to pull a bait and switch: Wait until the House and
Senate met to merge their two bills and then push for yet tougher
"[O]nce it went to conference, as part of the conference, there was
still another 60 vote threshold, and that is when I would have
insisted... for my last 60th vote, it has to have [Stupak-like
language]," Nelson said.
When the House and Senate have passed two versions of legislation,
negotiators from both chambers come together to iron out the
differences. The resulting, final legislation can still be
filibustered, though, and when that happens, Senate rules say the
package must attract 60 votes. That threat, Nelson says, is what would
have given him the power to insist on tougher abortion restrictions.
"There were a whole bunch of people who didn't like the Nelson
language - they only went along with because I could be the 60th vote,"
Nelson said. "Leverage increases, exponentially, like the difference
between a number 2 earthquake, 3 earthquake, 4 earthquake - goes up
exponentially like that - your leverage goes like that at the very
Conservative Senate Democrats like Senator Ben Nelson are nothing
short of progressive policy terrorists. They don't care about passing
progressive legislation that actually helps people. They do whatever
they can because of the filibuster rule and the 60 votes requirement.
It's what has allowed them to run roughshod over the democratic
process, and over progressives in the House and Senate with their