10 Reasons Why Democrats Who Opposed the Health Care Bill Made a Political Mistake

Even if you completely ignore how critical it is to reform the broken American health care system, most of the 39 Democrats who voted against health care reform in the House last week made a political mistake. Here's why:

1). The most basic reason is that the major elements of the bill are popular in the districts of the members who voted no.

For instance, the firm of Anzalone Liszt recently released the results of a poll it conducted in 91 Democratic Blue Dog, Rural Caucus and Frontline districts (those most vulnerable to Republicans). The poll found that 54% of the voters in these battleground districts support the choice of a public option. Provisions like ending the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions have over 80% support.

What's more, many voters in the districts of Members of Congress who voted no have particularly large numbers of downscale working class voters who are uninsured at some point in any given year - and would qualify for subsidies under the bill. The more they learn about the bill, the more they will like it.

2). Once the bill is passed it will become even more popular. Social Security, Medicare, and child labor laws were all controversial when they were first passed. Now they are all revered features of the American landscape. The same will be true of the health insurance reform that makes health care a right for all Americans.

By Election Day a year from now, the elements of health care reform will be even more popular in these districts than they are today. The only problem will be that the Democratic Member representing the district will have voted on the wrong side of history.

3). As former President Bill Clinton noted in his comments to Senate Democrats, history shows clearly that the party that nationalizes the mid-term elections is far more likely to emerge victorious. Nationalizing the 2010 mid-term election means running a national campaign that focuses on the successes and plans of the Obama Administration and Democratic Congress.

If the job picture has begun to improve, and the Congress passes the bulk of the Obama legislative program, the Democratic message will be very strong. If it does not, next November 2nd will be a very long night.

The Members of Congress with the biggest stake in the party's success nationalizing the election are the most vulnerable members - a number of whom voted against the bill last week. If the popularity of the President and Democratic brand go south because of the party's inability to pass health care reform (as it did in 1994), these are the Members most likely to be looking for another line of work.

Just as a rising tide raises all boats, so a receding political tide leaves those in the shallowest political water aground.

4). If Democrats are successful at passing their agenda and nationalizing the Mid-terms - which would otherwise be terrific news for the most vulnerable Members - the Members who voted no on the health care bill will look like skunks at the garden party.

When President Obama tours the country to promote the Democratic record to swing voters and to mobilize our base, it will be hard for him to say, "And now that you're convinced and excited, go cast your ballot for the guy who voted against our program."

5). In next year's elections, marginal Democrats desperately need highly-motivated Democratic voters to turn out to the polls. It's hard to inspire the base, if you voted against the program they supported.

In last week's Virginia and New Jersey Governor's races, Republicans were much more likely to vote than Democrats. Many of the voters who came out to support President Obama in 2008 simply didn't bother to vote. If that happens again in 2010, many marginal Democrats are toast.

Among other things, my political consulting firm organizes get-out-the-vote programs. I can tell you firsthand that it is a lot easier to motivate volunteers and voters to support someone who is a fighter for the causes people care about than it is for candidates who are scared of their own shadows. There is a lot you can do to turn out voters with good organization. But to really spur turnout you need to inspire voters. And, to build get-out-the-vote organizations, you need to inspire volunteers and party activists. Neither happens when candidates vote like Republicans.

In almost all of the districts where Democrats voted against the health care bill, it is particularly important to mobilize young people - and in most cases, African Americans. These are the two groups that most intensely support health care reform - and President Obama.

Remember, in 2010 President Obama will not be on the ballot. Voters will have to be inspired to turn out by the local Congressional and Senate candidates.

6). News flash to Democrats who voted against the health bill: not one of the "tea party" gang is going to support you in 2010. Whether you voted yes or no, they are all going to work their hearts out for your opponent. The "tea party" gang you saw at your town meeting in August does not represent swing voters in the district - they are the hardcore base of the Republican Party.

Instead of worrying about them, better to worry about inspiring your own highly-motivated volunteers and activists to compete with them. Voting against health care reform is not the way to do that. The same goes for grassroots donors.

7). Whether or not marginal Democrats voted for the health care bill, they will be held personally responsible for that bill - and the entire Obama program - by the Republicans in the next election.

When I was sixteen years old, it snowed in my old hometown of Shreveport, Louisiana during Mardi Gras week. They shut the schools, so my pal and I took the train to New Orleans to explore the wonders of Mardi Gras.

As I wandered wide-eyed down Bourbon Street one night the hawker at a strip club gave me a real lesson in life. He said, "Come on in sonny, they're going to say you did anyway."

That's exactly what will happen to every Democrat in the Mid-terms. The best way to prepare for that politically, is to stand up proudly and support the Democratic program - not to slink around in a defensive crouch.

It's much better politically to present a clear contrast to the Republicans than to try to be "Republican Lite." In general, if people want to vote for a Republican, they will vote for the real McCoy - not a weak imitation.

8). Voters like fighters. As a political consultant, I have worked in districts all over America -- with a host of other political consultants. I can tell you for certain that political consultants, as a class, are notoriously risk-averse and - unfortunately -- often completely nearsighted. Many of them think that today's controversy will look the same way on Election Day, and they are generally wrong.

Worst yet, they often advise their clients to keep their heads down, and to avoid making waves. Generally I have found this to be horrible advice. On the whole, swing voters - and certainly mobilizable voters - like fighters. They like candidates who have strong beliefs, and stick by their guns. That quality is an independent variable in deciding how persuadable voters cast their ballots.

Not long after the 2004 election, I was in a New Jersey taxicab. The driver was a typical male New Jersey cabbie. "So what do you think of Corzine?" I asked. "Oh, Corzine, tough guy. Like him," he replied about the then-Senator.

"What do you think of Bush?" I asked. "Like him too. Tough guy. Stands up for what he believes," came the answer.

"What about Kerry?" I asked. "Kerry? Can't stand him. Flip-flopper."

"How about Hillary Clinton?" I asked. "Tough gal. I like her," he said.

Ideology, policy positions - none of that mattered to this cabdriver who liked Corzine, Clinton and Bush. He wanted a tough, committed leader. But the Republicans had sold him on their core message - "John Kerry is a flip-flopper."

It's generally very hard to hide or finesse your core beliefs, and because swing voters are often more concerned with whether you have strong beliefs than the content of those beliefs, it's usually a bad idea to try.

9). Even if the economy begins to improve, the electorate in 2010 is likely to be angry. In that kind of environment, the candidate with the most populist message has a huge leg up.

At its heart, the health care issue is a battle between the interests of average Americans, and health insurance companies. It's a contest between everyday working people and insurance CEO's who make $12 million a year (that would be $5,769 per hour). It is a classic battle between the interests of Wall Street investors and Main Street health care consumers.

The polling is clear: it's great politics in any one of these swing district to stand up to health insurance companies. It's a terrible idea to cozy up to Daddy Megabucks, the Health Insurance Tycoon.

10) Finally, one of the most important rules in political life: if, as an office holder, you believe that there are political downsides to either side of a vote in Congress, you are always politically better off defending the decision you believe in.

I've talked to many Members of Congress who told me that they would like to vote for health care reform, but are afraid to take on the political opposition.

All Members of Congress are going to have to defend their health care votes. Instead of bobbing and weaving - instead of voting one way and believing another - politicians are almost always better off defending the side of the argument that they believe in their hearts is right.

It's bad politics not to, because in the end the voters cast their ballots for the character qualities they see in the candidates much more than anything else.

Americans United for Change has put out a wonderful ad that summarizes in 30 seconds the reasons why voting against health care reform is bad politics. You can see it on Youtube.com at: Bad Politics.

And remember, each of the 39 Democrats - and all but one Republican -- who voted against the health care bill have one more chance to redeem themselves. When the bill comes back from the House-Senate Conference there will be one more up or down vote on health care reform. Before then, let's all do everything we can to convince them that in this case, it's good politics to do what is right.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on amazon.com.

 

Comments

[Jzyehoshua]

2. This article fallaciously links the current health care bill to such great acts as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The bill fails to create comprehensive, cost-effective, or meaningful reforms (such as Tort Reform or addressing the nursing shortage). Ultimately, this bill is more about tweaks to the current system than anything so radical as the socialized welfare programs mentioned, and will prove as similar to them as the stimulus bill proved similar to FDR's programs. The problem with the Democrat bills is that the most radical aspects of their legislation are the dollar amounts, not the concepts behind them.
9. As the New York Times noted in its article, "In House, Many Spoke With One Voice - Lobbyists", both Republicans and Democrats supported specific portions of the bill because the Genentech health care lobbyists used monetary influence to have them do so. Huffington would like everyone to think opposition to the bill is supported by the big, nasty health care industry (even though OpenSecrets.org shows that for the 2010 cycle, health PACs are giving overwhelmingly more to Democrats than Republicans) without showing any evidence to back up this claim, even as evidence is emerging that the health care industry may have had its hands in doctoring the bill itself.

[lynettema]

Whew! This one sure brought out the tea baggers. Creamer is right on all counts. These idiots that voted no have to get out of Washington and listen to someone besides the teabaggers.

[Berettasskeeter]

Where do you think they hear from the Tea Party'ers? It certainly isn't in D.C., but rather in their home towns, where the voters have direct access.
BTW, what is a teabagger?
Semper fi

[avocats]

I cannot believe that we are still discussing "passing healthcare" or "health care reform." There is NO reform, people. There's an expansion of coverage (1) to prohibit consideration of pre-existing conditions, and (2) a huge subsidy for people who cannot "afford" health insurance. This will drive up health care costs for the average American. Medicare Advantage will continue to cost much more than "regular" medicare. Seniors will get the Rx donut hole removed--all very expensive. There is no meaningful public option and the insurance companies will continue to gouge. But worst of all, this is a collection of ridiculous bureaucratic pet projects that will cost a fortune but add nothing--N­OTHING--to actual health care. New bureaucracies, new government employees, new demands on health care providers that will make it harder to provide good care. No one seems to be talking about the substance. How could a columnist or blogger use these meaningless catch-phrases? Because the voters are entirely clueless and the media and politicians not even trying to educate them.

[free speech for all]

Not passing health care will not matter in 2010 because "it's the economy stupid". We are headed straight toward 15% unemployment. After spending a TRILLION in stimulus, still no improvement. Voters will look upon that as incompetence and/or corruption. Truth is, we are in a depression and not a recession, but you can't really see it yet because of all the quantitative easing.

[MillinMn]

You're not quite about no improvement." Job losses have slowed. Some jobs were saved, especially state jobs, with stimulus spending.

There's need for more federal stimulus, as Krugman and Reich both say.

There's no reason to believe we'll crash to 15% other than general pessimism

[lynettema]

The current health care system is a big part of why our economy is tanking. Health care reform will be a boon to our economy. REad Creamers #2. Teabaggers and GOPers are scared to death that HCR will be passed and they will be wandering in the wilderness for the next 40 years.

[neckozihp]

The current health care system has problems, but that's not the main reason our economy is tanking. The problem is too much government interference in health care already. Passing this monstrosity of a bill will make health care less affordable, and only add to our already enormous deficit.
This article discusses the political fallout rather than what will be beneficial for the American people. I don't care about the politicians. They are all crooks and don't really listen to WE the People.
Start with small changes to the health care system first. Such as reform of the insurance companies and physician liability insurance. The House Bill is way too large and complex!!!

[UkrainianPrince]

All good points, except you forgot it is the spineless Democratic party leadership from Obama, Reid, DCCC Rep. Chris Van Hollen and DNC Tim Kaine, etc. that has to insist that Democrats make these points to the electorate over the blow-dryed, tits-for-talent MSM infotainment newsy types... both in the "news" and in those districts and states. So far they have proven to be incompetent and intimidated in expressing their beliefs... I think because they really do not believe in those values, at least not enough to buck the "system" of Republicans, lobbyists, entrenched power structture in DC.
What few true Progressives are in the Senate, understand they are allowed to play in the sandbox as long as they do not exercise any real power nor make any serious demands.... notice the Dem leadership does not allow them to have a shovel. That's why Dems leadership have stabbed women, gays , middlle class (and yes, even minorities) in the back... because liberals and Progressives will take what is given to them.

[krocklin]

The analogy between Mexico and the direction our country is going in is apt. They have oil, plenty of resources, and yet 15 families own almost everything. Russia isn't much different.

[Mixpixlix]

It will be interesting to see if the Democrats have the stones to support a new party candidate to toss out the Blue Dogs, which seem only interested in eating their young.

I am a TRUE fiscal conservation with a strong sense of social justice. I believe people need a helping hand but not a handout. I believe everyone gets a 2nd chance,but I'm not a sucker. For decades our goverment has been throwing good money after bad (education is one example) because it refuses to TACKLE the real issues. It too easy to get people worked up on wedge issues and get them to ignore the fact that their incomes, health and lifestyle are evaporating.

And, the Blue Dogs have singing the chorus of a song with no substances. They're not even sure what they against or why. My health insurance premium is going up 20%. I've reach the point where I might actually have to use my insurance, I wonder if it will be there when I really need it.


We need to elect those who truly represent the needs of the electorate and put in place RECALL mechanicsms that allow up to toss out those who believe D.C. is the world's biggest casino and are just waiting for the payout.

[dawlishgal]

What scares me is that Obama is acting as though it is more important to protect the Blue Dogs from defeat than it is to get a workable bill for health care reform.

It is way past time for him to throw people like Jason Altmire (formerly an insurance company employee) under the bus.

The Blue Dogs claim to be Democrats, but if their records are scrutinized and analyzed, it becomes clear that they vote with Democrats on bills for which the outcome is no surprise....the Democrats will either win or lose without their votes. When their vote matters, then they vote with Republicans.

Since almost no votes are all that close, their treachery escapes notice. But we really don't need these fairweather friends in office. Lieberman is the perfect example of those who play the system in Democratic sheeps' clothing, but are really disguised Republican wolves. He passed his turn on the Thomas confirmation vote, and voted "No" only after it became clear that Thomas would be confirmed without his vote. ANd the newspapers reported that he voted "No." One had to be watching the voting to understand what was going on.

People who got the letter from Carville about contributiing to the congressional campaign fund ought to answer that from now on they are giving only to REAL Democrats. Why contribute to any general fund that might end up in campaigns of people like Peterson and Altmire and the rest?

[banja]

Goodluck getting those Bluedogs to grow a spine, a courageous bluedog is an oxymoron. Look what happened to Deeds trying to play footsie with Obama.

[goodnews7]

Democrat Turncoats
We’ve asked the question as to whether or not your elected representatives are working for you or powerful industry lobbies before. It was a rhetorical question, of course. Most of them are, unless they anger too many of their electorate and fear for their seats in the next election.

The 39 Democrats who voted against [...]
http://bit.ly/1GCT1s

[theycallthewindmariah]

My Dem congressman voted against it after telling the major paper in the state that he was for it.

So when the next election comes around I'm going to tell him I'm for him, and then vote against him.

All of my calls, emails, letters, visits to his local office were ignored. It goes both ways now.

[Rook119]

No Dem politician "lost" by voting against the public option. If they lose the election it just means they are free to make millions shilling as a lobbyist for the insurance industry and/or make just as much twittling their thumbs doing such hard work as sitting on a board of directors for these companies.

Losing the election was the best thing that ever happened to Dashle. What he's worth 50M now?

[LePistoir]

Creamer,
You're pretty darn optimistic about the health care reform coming out of this Congress and expecting it to join the Pantheon next to Medicare. Medicare works really well, but the reforms in this bill do very little, covering an additional six million for almost a trillion dollars over the next ten years. That's about $30,000 per insured person. The bill does nothing to control cost, raising the deficit, still leaves 40+ million uninsured and entrenches the for-profit insurance industry even deeper in our health care and our political systems. Once Americans realize it's a sham, they will react against the Dem establishment. Republicans will feel their "big government is bad" tenets were vindicated, rushing to the polls for change and Democratic voters will feel discouraged because they worked so hard to get Dems elected and they got nothing done, so they'll stay home. The Dems voting against reform know their base has nowhere to turn and that they are fighting over independents.

[MichaelMcKLA]

Getting politicians to do the right thing is almost always difficult. Exception: When there is no doubt at all what the public wants. Example: Going after bin Laden after 9/11. Rest of the time, voters are trying to get these characters to pay attention to the country's needs while lobbyists are doing their best to keep them in their own orbit. It's almost like the public needs to "out-bribe" the special interests. It's very discouraging.

[rocketman69]

You forgot the biggest mistake they made- They will be re-elected and have to sit in Congress for another term.