The single most interesting (to me) outcome of Tuesday night’s election is the degree to which the healthcare bill is now seen as a dire threat to Democratic control of congress. If so, the Democratic Party leadership is in a trap of its own making.
The health bill has now become a no-win conundrum. The public is clearly anxious about the economic trajectory and the federal deficit and are quite skeptical that another trillion in federal spending on healthcare will result either in a better health system or in lower costs. The federal government’s old saw, “you gotta spend money to save money” is now so discredited it is met with grimness rather than a grin. Democratic claims to the contrary notwithstanding (“victory begets victory,” says Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky in this morning’s Washington Post), the most likely response to a big health bill from the worried middle of the country is a sharp electoral rebuke.
The Blue Dog Democrats get this – they have been living it for six months now – and seem to be making a strenuous case for delaying and scaling back the Democratic approach on health. What the Blue Dogs miss, of course, is what the liberals see clearly: a failure on universal coverage invites a downward spiral with the liberal blogosphere tearing the party to pieces and depressing the base for 2010. From an electoral standpoint, you never want to have to choose between an energized base and the affection of independents. They are both “must-haves” yet the debate over healthcare legislation could easily end up delivering neither.
4 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Nov 5, 2009 at 6:18 pm
What the Blue Dogs miss, of course, is what the liberals see clearly: a failure on universal coverage invites a downward spiral with the liberal blogosphere tearing the party to pieces and depressing the base for 2010.
Seriously – the blogosphere really affects what percentage of the vote? We here on these various forums take ourselves way too seriously sometimes.
It can certainly affect fundraising mind you – and since Dem candidates often don’t have the big Chamber of Commerce anti-tax contributors that Repub candidates have, they have been relying a lot more on netroot contributions.
But there is no real sense in asking people to contribute to candidates who they think are acting in opposition to their main concerns.
The question Blue Dogs may have to ask is whether they could ever move far enough to the right to not draw attacks from Republicans as being dangerous liberals. I’m guessing that for most, no.
2 ottovbvs // Nov 5, 2009 at 6:28 pm
……..Today the American Medical Association and the American Association For Retired People endorsed the bill……it’s obviously dangerous legislation doomed to fail………the blue dogs may howl they are not going to bite with cover from these two organizations…….what I find most interesting about the current spin from Republicans is that they believe this is going to be unpopular……as Billy Kristol pointed out long ago it’s going to be massively popular with consequent benefits to Dems next year…..or was Billy wrong all along?
3 balconesfault // Nov 5, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Also – per Ezra Klein: According to CBO, the GOP’s alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit. The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan.
4 rbottoms // Nov 7, 2009 at 7:57 pm
But Michael Moore is fat.
You must log in to post a comment.