Bailout Bottom Line: The Safer The Seat, The Closer To Yes

Once the press is finished chewing over whether it was the monolithic left or the monolithic right that doomed the passage of whatever rough beast had been cooked up to slouch off with several hundred billion taxpayer dollars, perhaps someone will notice that voting trends today reflected a deeper problem with our government -- the tendency of those with safe seats to gamble more. At 538.com, the indispensable Nate Silver breaks down the data:

Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.

By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.

Silver adds an even more telling update:

A helpful reader named Matt Glassman passed along the fact that, among 26 congressmen NOT running for re-election (almost all of whom are Republicans), 23 voted in favor of the bill, as opposed to 2 against and one abstaining.

So, why are we arguing about what impact John McCain had on this vote, exactly? By all indications, he had none.

Comments

[wisequeen]

Interesting subject, safe seats. Read what middle America thinks about this situation on www.wisequeen.com today.

[LemonMeringue]

The MSM is obsessed with the 12 Republican votes that switched to NO at the last minute - supposedly because of Pelosi's speech which is not believable.

I am more interested in hearing from the 1/3 of Democrats and 2/3 of Republicans who were always going to vote NO. Why were they against this bill?

The MSM is not telling us what we really need to know.

[Kalel]

I don't think anyone is crazy enough to believe that McCain was actually doing anything that was helpful to the process. McCain's problem is that he billed himself as the hammer that would drive the nail and that didn't happen. He set himself up to reap all of the credit for a bailout agreement and no agreement happened and that is where he'll take his most recent lumps.

[standard]

HOWEVER, Speaker Pelosi allowed five committee chairmen and several subcommittee heads to vote "No" when she ought to have threatened to strip them of their jobs. That was an inexcusable failure to enforce party discipline. It is unlikely that all of them hold shaky seats.

[ella52]

Speaker Pelosi held back more Democrats voting because she wanted Republicans to shoulder at least half the burden. The Democrats had enough votes to push it through, but when it appeared GOP would not take 50%, Pelosi said no more; as it was Democrats voted 60% FOR
In part her opening remarks were to remind the Repubs that Bush, and by default thir own party, are at least partly responsible. She wanted them to assume some responsibility.
Well you can bring that horse to water but apparently you cannot make it drink.
Republicans never accept responsibilty for anything.

[Yermammy]

You're both wrong. By presenting this evidence, one thing should be crystal clear. If you use logic, the safer the seat the more likely a vote of "YES". Consequently, if the seat is NOT safe the vote was "NO". Still don't see it, huh? These "representatives" are elected to the House to speak for YOU, the ones that put them there. So, if they vote against what YOU want, they think they'll suffer no bad consequences immediately (because their seat doesn't come up now). This is MORE PROOF that they no longer work for your interest and are basically saying "go screw yourself". I know how the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government is SUPPOSED TO WORK. IT'S NOT WORKING. OUR "representatives" are to demand public (Government) equity in this , OR nationalize the Banks. It's just that simple. Of course Limousine Liberal's like Nancy hate that thought. 95 Dems disagreed.

[standard]

I take your point and I don't dispute what you say here--especially about Republicans refusing to accept responsibility for ANYTHING. However, lecturing their Representatives immediately before a sensitive, critical vote and holding that vote without a solid, prior count of who was committed to voting for and against, weren't good tactics.

Some form of the same bill can still pass the Senate and House and be signed into law now, with just the same, sufficient level of Republican support already in evidence. We cannot allow confidence in our nation's economy to suffer because we're worried about how the Republicans may characterize this vote in 2012. OF COURSE they'll blame any untoward side effects, real or imaginary, on the Democrats! That's just, as one commentator said years ago, "the Republican's quadrennial game of 'Pin the Blame on the Donkey' ".

I don't blame the Speaker for her objective, but she is responsible for the poor execution, tactically. Paul Ryan voted Yes and Kucinich and Conyers, No? That's an outrage!

[ella52]

Anyone catch Laura Tyson, former economic advisor to Clinton, on Rachel Maddow last night?

She put it in terms we all can understand, without talking down to us. Something, frankly neither party in Congress has done a particularly good job at.

Course Repubs would find her suspicious.

I'm sure it is on Youtube by now.

[GotRights]

My congressman, Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon), is as safe as they come. He voted against the bailout.

[DebbieinPhx]

No one liked this bill. It was ugly from day one. It's the bitter pill we all have to swallow. That being said, rather than killing our economy... you.take.the.dang.pill!!!! There was a deal struck. Make no presumptions there was not. The deal was struck and the leadership from both parties signed off on it. Pelosi and the Dems were supposed to bring 140 yes votes to the table. They did. Brewer and the repugs fell completely on their faces and they d*mn well know it. They've lost control of their own rank and file and NO ONE is in charge. Not Brewer, NOT McCain and certainly not Bush. They are a trainwreck. No doubt about it. (Hence that ridiculous display of blaming Pelosi rather than "manning up" and admitting they can't control their own votes!)

[Yermammy]

Thank you. Most Democrats that don't have their thumb in the pie won't. Research the Yes voters. That should speak volumes.

[PT6]

In CRISIS can we stand FOUR MONTHS of a POWERLESS PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT?

No! They can not control Their OWN REPUB HOUSE and They are causing MORE DAMAGE!

We MUST START IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS and THE CHARGES ARE:

1. False Statements to Congress and the American People regarding IRAQ.
2. Non-Regulation of Stock, Bond, Banking, and Oil.
3. Non-Enforcement of SEC Rules on "Naked Shorts" that drove Companies to Bankruptcy and Merger.
4. Excessive Leveraging of Oil Market to Force Oil to Record Highs.
5. Non-Regulation of Mortgage Industry that lead to "TRICK" Loans and lost homes.
6. Non-Regulation of Derivatives which combine HIGH RISK LOANS together and Sell as Low Risk.
7. Non-Enforcement of Rules and Regulations in ALL INDUSTRIES.
8. Excessive Executive Pay for POOR PERFORMANCE.

There is literally REAMS of INFORMATION including Video, Audio, Text, Phone, and email evidence to convict these perpetrators.

[DebbieinPhx]

Where's Dennis Kucinich and does he know you're cribbing his stuff? *smirk*

Actually, you're completely dead on right. The problem is the GOP thug-lettes would pounce on this move as the Dems playing politics and wasting tax payers money at a time when they should be trying to get a deal hatched to save the economy. I think the Dems should hold out at this point. Actually I think they should write a bill that is much, much MUCH more favorable to the American taxpayers (which is going the wrong way... away from the compromise not towards) and here's why. They came to the table. They worked until 1AM every night this last week and what did the rethugs do? They vacillated and then they failed to live up to the voting quorums promised. So Pelosi and company should start taking the GOP laced stuff out and putting some Democratic teeth into the bill. The longer the GOP waits the uglier the bill will be to swallow. But make no mistake.... they WILL swallow. Every time Wall Street falls another 500 points you can simply hear another dozen or so Repugs seats falling by the wayside in November. They'll cooked their own goose... hoisted themselves on their own pitard... pick your metaphor.

[DrJohnnySkeptic]

That sounds like a great idea, but I think that the public has learned that people in politics and in Hollywood are exempt, for the most part, from the punishment that they clearly deserve. While the people want justice, the offender gets away with it. And then comes the veil of justice with the kangaroo court.

From Wikipedia:

'A kangaroo court or kangaroo trial, sometimes likened to a drumhead court-martial or Drumhead trial, is a sham legal proceeding or court. Kangaroo courts are judicial proceedings that deny due process rights in the name of expediency. Such rights include the right to summon witnesses, the right of cross-examination, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to control one's own defense, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible (e.g. hearsay), the right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, and the right of appeal. The outcome of a trial by "kangaroo court" is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of providing a conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all.'

Unfortunately, justice and politics don't go together.

[memphispaul]

Having relocated from Barbra Lee's Oakland, CA district to Marsha Blackburn's TN district about 18 months ago the vote was most likely the first time these two members of congress agreed on any matter of spending.
Amazingly, both members hold very safe seats.

[jacqmac]

You knw what? I'm as tired of this blaming Speaker Pelosi's allegedly partisan speech for this failure of leadership. I missed the original speech, but saw it re-run TWICE on C-Span. You know what the 'partisanship' was? She said "FAILEDBUSH ECONOMIC POLICIES". That's ALL. ONE PHRASE!!

EEK! She SCARED de wittle boys! She said a BAD WORD! In case you haven't been tuned in lately, it is the REPUBLICANS WHO ARE RUNNING AWAY FROM THEIR OWN FAILED LEADERSHIP HERE. THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS WON'T SAY 'BUSH'. JOHN MCCAIN WON'T SAY BUSH. The ONLY PEOPLE in CONGRESS WHO ARE SAYING 'BUSH' ARE THE DEMOCRATS. THE ONLY PEOPLE SAYING 'BUSH' OUT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL ARE BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN.
So--IF W. isn't PRESIDENT and hasn't BEEN PRESIDENT FOR NEARLY EIGHT YEARS--WHO WAS THAT MAN STANDING AT THE PODIUM BEHIND THE PRESIDENTIAL SEAL? HECK! There ARE EVEN SOME DEMOCRATS WHO WON'T SAY "BUSH"!! I ask you--WHOSE POLICIES WERE THESE GUYS SUPPORTING FOR EIGHT, SIX, FOUR OR EVEN TWO YEARS?
'

[OneVoiceOfReason]

They were the policies of Cheney...

Bush was just a hood ornament...did you ever notice how when there was any kind of danger, they would throw Bush up for a press conference while they kept Cheney in an underground bunker?

It's not rocket surgery....did you really think they'd let Bush run the country? Not a chance.

Look at the policies over the last 8 years....then put that in the context of a Cheney attitude.
It all makes sense now.

"Wake up America...Wake up America...Wake up America" - - Dennis Kucinich

[mady]

Agreed. Pel osi spoke the truth, but they wanted Miss Manners.

[GeoLee]

Tonight I imagine the talk at Florida synagogues was not New Year's. I imagine many of those Jewish pensioners favoring McCain may have looked at the stock market nosedive and decided McCain did not have the political capital they thought...nor the real capital either. Looks like McCain's wife may have lost 6 or 7 million today,

[roninracer]

So much for that whole 'no taxation without representation' thing.

These do-nothings in congress only care about keeping their jobs and care nothing about the population they profess to represent.

We need to vote in term limits for these criminals who twist 'public service' to mean 'personal enrichment'

-------------------------------------
I recommend that everyone read:
"The Limits of Power:
The End of American Exceptionalism."
By: Andrew J. Bacevich

[chitown8]

"The Administration's proposal, as it has been presented to Congress, needs significant changes. First, any plan that puts taxpayer money at risk must ensure that taxpayers get paid back before shareholders, bondholders or executives"so that corporate CEOs do not get a golden parachute while taxpayers are left to pay the bill.

"Additionally, Congress should act further to keep Americans in their homes by addressing the crisis in the mortgage industry as well as the one in the financial sector. Any economic package that allows tens of thousands of Americans to lose their homes is simply inadequate.

"Finally, there must be accountability. If we invest taxpayer dollars to protect our financial markets, we should make sure that money is spent effectively and efficiently, with proper oversight and accountability. No administration should be given unlimited authority over the spending of $700 billion or more of taxpayers" dollars. Any bailout plan needs to ensure that those managing the bailout are responsible to Congress and the American people."


Tom Uall CO

[Kwaayesnama]

ARIZONA VOTED AGAINST MCCAIN

I love the fact that John McCain blames the vote going against the bailout on Obama. But there is an interesting fact out there. ALL the representatives from Arizona voted against the bailout? It just shows how much the other reps from AZ respect McCain. If he can't get the republicans from his home state to vote with him how is he going to get the rest of the nation to work with him. Maybe they are angry because while McCain brags that he has never done anything for his home state, they are all stuck working for the people of Arizona in DC.

ARIZONA
Democrats " Giffords, N; Grijalva, N; Mitchell, N; Pastor, N.
Republicans " Flake, N; Franks, N; Renzi, N; Shadegg, N.

[Badfickle]

The right wing blogs are all filled with attacks blaming the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) started under Carter for the sub Prime meltdown. It's totally bogus (and possibly a bit of race baiting). Here's a link to a article by the very conservative Cato institute arguing that we don't need the CRA to help low income homebuyers buy houses because non-regulated mortgage lenders are tripping overthemselves to sell subprime loans to them. If any of your right wing friends comes up with the CRA(p) arguement show them this:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n3/gunther.pdf

Here's some highlights:

"Growth in lending to low-income neighborhoods by institutions outside cra"s jurisdiction suggests deregulation and technological advances have increased competition, lowered information costs, and increased access to financial services. As a result, a good part of the lending in low-income neighborhoods by financial institutions subject to cra also might reflect those factors, rather than cra lending mandates. The available data support that proposition. Most of the recent growth in lending by cra-covered institutions in low-income neighborhoods has occurred in areas where the institutions do not operate banking offices and have no cra obligations. The inescapable conclusion is that progress predicated on technology, financial innovation, and competition"not cra"has broadened the U.S. financial services marketplace."

[chitown8]

Yet Florida and California have the highest foreclosed homes?

Strange.

BTW the folks who lost their homes along the beach of Galveston, TX that propoerty belongs to Texas now!

[ObidenLvr]

An article from 2000? Wow, you got us good.

Okay guys, they got us. It's really the republicans fault. We all got rich and made poor people poorer.
Sorry.

But McCains still gonna win.

[imusintheevening]

Something tells me there are going to be a lot of new faces in the next Congress!

[ErnestineBass]

I can think of one I BADLY want to see changed. Pelosi OUT, Sheehan IN.

[LemonMeringue]

After Pelosi tried to hard to push through this bailout I'm supporting Sheehan too.

[Lyndependent]

We've seen politics get down and dirty nasty! So, does the best man win? Hell NO! The winner is the one who totally trashes the other guy.

Does this practice give us intelligent leaders, who KNOW what they're doing? Hell NO!

We reap what we sow... Please, voters! Do your homework before you go to the polls. Voting out of fear, or because you like or dislike someone's appearance has absolutely nothing to do with leadership!