"I am opposed to and will fight against any attempts to push through changes to the Senate health insurance reform legislation by using budget reconciliation tactics that would allow the Senate to pass a package of changes to our original bill with 51 votes," she said in a statement. "I will not accept any last-minute efforts to force changes to health insurance reform issues through budget reconciliation, and neither will Arkansans."
A moderate Democrat who had vowed to oppose any effort by party leaders to push a health care bill through the Senate with a simple majority vote is rethinking her position.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln said Tuesday that she wants to see what is in the companion bill before deciding.
Steady as a rock, that Blanche Lincoln. Talk about someone who is principled and immutable to political pressure. Given how often she claims that she is speaking for Arkansas, does this mean the entire state is as flip-floppoity as she is?
Following in the tradition of endorsing John Barrow when he faced a primary challenge, supporting Joe Lieberman when he was threatened with losing his seniority, Arlen Specter when he faced a primary challenge, and Micheal Bennet when he faced a primary challenge, the White House just endorsed Blanche Lincoln now that she is facing a primary challenge from Arkansas Lt. Governor Bill Halter:
President Obama is sticking with Sen. Blanche Lincoln in the May 18 Democratic primary in Arkansas.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed today that Obama will keep with his trend of supporting the sitting senator in party primaries, as he's done with Sen. Arlen Specter over Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and in supporting Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado.
"We support Senator Lincoln as an incumbent senator," Gibbs told reporters today during his daily briefing.
It is difficult to figure out how a policy of "support all incumbent Democrats all the time" is either an example of bringing change to Washington, D.C., or gives the White House political leverage over potentially wayward Democratic members of Congress. Rather, supporting all incumbents all the time is both supporting and empowering the status quo.
Some of the chatter around Evan Bayh's exit has speculated that he is gearing up for a right-wing primary challenge to President Obama in 2012. Bayh did organize a new Senate caucus that has stalled most of President Obama's agenda, and he has $13 million in the bank.
However, it can be safely said that, unless Obama's approval rating declines sharply among Democrats, there is no such room for a right-wing primary challenge. Here is President Obama's approval rating by partisan and ideological self-identification, sorted by the percentage of each group in the 2008 Presidential primary electorate:
Obama job approval by partisan and ideological self-identification, within the Democratic primary electorate
Ideology and Party
% of Dem primary electorate
Presidential Job Approval
Liberal Dem
38%
87%
Moderate Dem
31%
82%
Conservative Dem
9%
75%
Liberal Ind
9%
67%
Moderate Ind
7%
55%
Conservative Ind
3%
27%
Lib-Mod Rep
2%
31%
Conservative Rep
1%
12%
(Source for primary electorate composition: here Source for job approval by partisan and ideological self-ID: here and here)
This amount to an overall approval of 77% among the Democratic primary electorate. Further, only 5% of the primary electorate are self-identified conservatives who not approve of President Obama's job performance, and 10% are self-identified moderates who do not approve of President Obama's job performance.
That gives a right-wing primary challenge to President Obama only 15% of the presidential primary electorate to work with, which is less than one-fifth the percentage of the electorate that approves of President Obama's job performance. Further, it is likely that the self-identified liberals within the presidential primary electorate who do not approve of President Obama's job performance would break significantly against any such right-wing primary challenger. This makes it difficult for such a challenger to even win any delegates, much less actually mount a credible threat to President Obama's re-nomination.
President Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination in 2012, and win it easily. There won't be any other viable Democratic candidates for President until the 2016 primary season starts in late 2014.
Evan Bayh's surprise retirement announcement comes only four days before the filing deadline for the Indiana primary. Since Indiana requires Senate candidates to submit 500 signatures from each of the state's nine congressional districts (by tomorrow!), there is no feasible way for a new candidate to announce and gather the necessary signatures before the filing deadline.
So, this means that the only option left for Democrats in Indiana is for the state party to select a candidate. As such, there will be no primary election:
R.J. Gerard, communications director for the Indiana Democratic Party confirmed to TPMDC that the state Democratic Party would be able to select a new candidate to run in November's general election if no one files petitions with 4,500 signatures (500 within each of the state's nine House districts) to run in the primary.
"I would imagine that it would be the plan, depending on what happens between now and Friday," Gerard said. Gerard did not know whether any discussions are going on with potential new candidates.
This means the Indiana Democrats would avoid holding a primary to choose who will be their nominee in the fall.
Who might the state party choose? The Indiana bench, at least at the Congressional level, is weak.
They could go with Andre Carson, but would Indiana really be the first state to put a Muslim in the Senate? Doesn't feel like a red state in 2010 is when that barrier will be broken.
So, among Indiana Congressman, this basically leaves Joe Donnelly by default. This would not be very exciting, given that Donnelly is one of the most conservative members of the Democratic House caucus. His lifetime Progressive Punch score on crucial votes is only 33.78%, ranking him 245 out of the 255 current Democratic members of the House.
Anyway, given the anti-Washington mood, it is probably a good idea for the Indiana state party to look outside of the Congressional delegation. Hopefully, they can find a Mayor or State Senator in the mold of Eric Massa or Alan Grayson. Anti-financial institution and anti-bailout rhetoric is probably the best chance Democrats have in red districts this year. Also, Massa and Grayson also happen to be the only two members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus from lean-Republican districts. They have the only proven model for Progs in Republican districts.
Update--another Democrat already in the race: There is an existing candidate, Tamyra d'Ippolito. She has 23 followers on Twitter, 2 donations on Act Blue, and a pretty bare bones campaign website. She hasn't collected the signatures to get on the ballot yet, and I doubt that she will given what appears to be a very small organization. But, if she did somehow get on the ballot, the Democratic Party would probably have to defeat her in a write-in campaign. Otherwise, she would be the nominee, and Republicans would cruise in the general election.
Kind of makes me wonder if Republicans will start helping her get on the ballot now..
Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D) is the early name Dem strategists are throwing around. He easily beat ex-Rep. John Hostettler (R) in '06 to capture a centrist district, and he has cut a moderate swath in his 2 terms in the House.
Its true that Ellsworth defeated Hostettler. However, Hostettler is not a strong candidate. If Hostettler were to win the Republican primary, the seat would be very winnable for Democrats.
There are three problems with Ellsworth: he is in D.C., his House seat would be taken over by a Republican, and he is just as right-wing as Donnelly.
They need to pick someone from outside of D.C. who is willing to go after financial institutions. That is the model right now.
The wingnuttiest proposal from a Democratic Senate candidate this cycle is Arlen Specter's flat tax.
For fifteen years, Arlen Specter has supported a 20% flat tax proposal that would slash taxes on the rich and significantly raise them on working families. He introduced it as recently as March of last year.
While it was reasonable to assume that Specter had dropped this position now that he had become a Democrat, Specter's website is still promoting the plan and his campaign spokespeople are still defending his flat tax proposal today:
Rep. Joe Sestak opened a new front in his assault on Sen. Arlen Specter as his campaign criticized the incumbent's long-standing support for a flat tax to replace the current income tax system.(...)
Chris Nicholas, Mr. Specter's campaign manager, dismissed the criticism as "yet another negative attack from Sestak.''
"Because his attack didn't spell out any new approach on this issue, he must be endorsing the status quo, odd for a guy who keeps trying to tell us he's an outsider,'' Mr. Nicholas said. "Specter's flat tax would downsize the IRS and save all Americans time and money. Sestak should explain why he's against that.'
This article is from today. And from Specter's website, he adds that he would like to see the estate tax and dividend taxes permanently repealed in their entirety:
In March 1995, I introduced the first bill in the Senate that would create a Federal flat tax. This legislation proposes completely replacing current tax provisions with an across-the-board 20 percent Federal tax on the income of individuals and businesses. I also included provisions in this bill that would eliminate the estate tax as well as the tax on dividends. In the 110th Congress, I reaffirmed my commitment to reforming the Federal tax system by introducing similar flat tax legislation.
Now, I work for Joe Sestak, so take this with whatever grain of salt you want. However, no matter who the messenger is on this one, this is hard-core right-wing tax policy. It is coming from a Democratic Senator in Pennsylvania, and he is still promoting it on his Senate website, and defending it through campaign spokespeople.
And remember Specter coming out against the war in Afghanistan? Well, he hasn't introduced a single bill, or cast a single vote against the war, but he has since suggested that we pre-emptively attack Yemen.
This is some pretty right-wing stuff. If you don't think Arlen Specter will maintain a façade of supporting progressive policies once the primary is over, check out Joe Sestak. He is on Facebook and Twitter, too.
The Illinois Senate primary is tonight. Polls close at 7 p.m. central time (8 p.m. eastern, 5 p.m. pacific). There are a lot of races taking place but, as a D.C. focused blogger, I will only be providing updates on the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Check out Swing State Project and Archpundit for the nitty gritty on the other campaigns.
Vote margin: Giannoulias +34,822 (going up--this is over. No further updates.)
Update (9:12 eastern)--Looking like Giannoulias: Smart observation from alex in the comments:
it's hard to see a path for victory for Hoffman. He's not doing well enough in the collar counties to offset Chicago city and he's doing mostly poorly outside of Chicagoland at the moment.
Hoffman isn't strong enough in the city of Chicago to stage a comeback there. His weakness among African-Americans, and downstate, appears ready to sink him.
Very worried about Giannoulias making himself, and the party, look bad with his banking ties. He may be the more lefty than Hoffman, but I can't say I was pulling for him tonight. Ties to a banking scandal are just terrible right now.
Update 2--A look at the Illinois 10th. Worth noting, from minvis in the comments:
But the House 10th District is shaping up to be a good chance at a pickup for the Democrats. This is Kirk's old House seat. The moderate Republican, Elizabeth Coulson, is losing substantially to a more conservative Republican. This is a slightly Democratic leaning district nationally. It voted for Gore, Kerry and Obama the last 3 presidential elections. Whoever wins the Democratic race, Seals is leading slightly right now, will more closely align with the electorate there than a right-wing Republican.
Good note. Too add, IL-10 actually isn't slightly lean Democratic--it is D+6 in Cook PVI, which makes it roughly 12 points more favorable to Democrats than the national picture. It is the second most Democratic district in the country held by a Republican (Delaware at-large is #1 in this category).
Follow the results of the House race here. I am a little dubious about Seals--pretty sure he isn't particularly progressive. This is also his third run, and he failed to take the seat during two very Democratic years. On the other hand, I know nothing about Julie Hamos, his main opponent.
With 4 precincts left to report, Seals leads by 662 votes. Looks like Seals eeked it out.
update 3--Hamos appears to be Jan Schakowsky protege. Multiple commenters are now reporting that Hamos is a protege of Jan Schakowsky. That sounds pretty good to me.
If Hamos is great, and if she doesn't pull this out, it feels like a lost opportunity for a progressive pickup. Terrible mistake on my part--should have done my research and gotten involved.
Update 4--Mark Kirk crushes tea party challengers in Republican Senate primary: To no one's surprise, Mark Kirk cruises to victory in the Republican Senate primary. He currently has 56% of the vote, and only 19% for the closest challenger.
Update 5--I am calling it for Giannoulias: Giannoulias is going to be the Democratic nominee for Senate in Illinois. Hopefully, his scandals will stay local, and he will find a way to beat Kirk despite them. He leads in the polls right now, but keep an eye on this campaign. Could get very dicey.
No further updates tonight. This is an open thread on the Illinois primary.
Reid also declares that Olympia Snowe was negotiating in bad faith, that she was never going to support a health care bill, and that talking to her was a waste of time.
Given that both Lieberman and Snowe were negotiating in bad faith, we should have been pushing for reconciliation as hard as we were pushing for the public option.
Then again, Kissell only leads a potential primary challenger 49-15, and only 28% of Democrats know he voted against the bill. For an incumbent, those are pretty weak primary numbers-someone could actually knock him off. However, the North Carolina primary is on May 4th, so it is unlikely that a strong primary campaign would be able to gear up in such a short time.
Ned Lamont's main opponent in the Democratic primary for Governor in Connecticut has dropped out. Current polling on the campaign indicates that Ned is now the strong favorite in both the primary and the general election. Get ready for Governor Lamont!
It turns out that if I delete content from a website that I--quite literally--own, then I am engaging in censorship. I don't remember the part of the first amendment that declares everyone is allowed to use everyone else's printing press.
This is the last day to submit your comments to the FCC in support of Net Neutrality. Go do it, now.
The FDIC is trying to limit risky bank behavior by linking it to limits on executive pay. The good news not just the ruling, but that the ruling is causing blowback from the conservative members of the FDIC. This is a perfect example of the type of fights Democrats have to pick with financial institutions in 2010. As I wrote yesterday, banks must be portrayed as the culprit, and Democrats have to come across as fighting the banks father than colluding with them.
Keep picking fights like these, and pick them as publicly as possible.
Entering the day, 59 Senators were publicly committed to confirming Dawn Johnsen to the Office of Legal counsel in the Department of Justice. Here is a fun timeline on how the 60th vote was secured today:
12:10 p.m.: TPMDC posts a challenge from Joe Sestak urging Arlen Specter to stop blocking Dawn Johnsen's nomination to the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice.
1:30 p.m. Main Justice reiterates Sestak's challenge.
3:48 p.m.: Specter campaign sends a press release to TPMDC and Legal Times saying that he now supports Dawn Johnsen's nomination.
****
This sort of thing happens a lot on the Sestak campaign, and it is pretty great. I have never found it so easy to flip how a Senator votes. I wish it was this easy for all 100 Senators.
Through his his willingness to stand up to the party leadership and primary challenge Arlen Specter, Joe Sestak just got Dawn Johnsen enough votes to be confirmed in the Senate. Think about that--it's pretty amazing. It is certainly the biggest accomplishment of any congressional campaign in the 2009-2010 cycle. Please, show Joe Sestak some love for this:
Yesterday, I reported that Progressive caucus co-chair Lynne Woolsey is holding a fundraiser for Blue Dog Jane Harman, who is facing a primary challenge from Progressive Marcy Winograd.
Now, at FDL, David Dayen reports that powerful Progressive Caucus member Henry Waxman sent out a fundraising letter earlier this week. Apparently, Dayen himself was asked to co-chair the Woolsey-Harman fundraiser. The Harman campaign is trying to hard burnish its progressive credentials through progressive surrogates.
Waxman apparently doesn't like Winograd because of her views on Israel and Palestine. That is really lame. In the House, power is rarely wielded by individual members, and instead comes in networks. Even if Winograd were in Congress, she wouldn't be able to change American I/P policy one iota.
What Winograd wold do, however, is be the first Progressive member of Congress who defeated a Blue Dog incumbent in a primary challenge. Instead, Waxman--through Harman--is strengthening a network that in 2009 successfully weakened education reform, health care reform, new financial regulations, climate change legislation, and the budget.
Harman wants to use progressive surrogates to boost her progressive credentials. That is nothing more than symbolism. If Harman really wants to prove she is progressive, then she publicly renounce her membership in the network of right-wing Democrats that have successfully weakened every single major piece of Democratic legislation over the past year. It is the same network that helped George W. Bush pass his agenda through a Democratic Congress.
We need to weaken this network. They are helping to deny our generational opportunity for change. Unfortunately, along with her Progressive surrogates, Jane Harman is strengthening it.
Marcy Winograd is one of the very few serious, viable, progressive challengers to a Blue Dog in Congress. In the California 36th congressional district, Winograd, who has spent a lifetime as an activist for progressive causes, is taking on Blue Dog Jane Harman.
Please join Congresswoman Jane Harman in welcoming Congresswoman Lynne Woolsey Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus for a special evening of conversation and hors d'oeuvres with Lynne and Jane in support of Jane's re-election to Congress!
Danny's Venice
23 Windward Avenue
Venice, CA 90291
Saturday, January 16, 2010
4:00pm to 6:00pm
A cash bar and discounted parking will be available (two lots: one next to Danny's or on Speedway just south of Windward)
For more information, please contact Marc Saltzberg at XXXXXXXX or Email: Harman_Woolsey@yahoo.com
Please join us at this extraordinary event, a fund raiser for Congresswoman Harman in an historic Venice location.
To ensure everyone has an opportunity to attend, Democratic Club members can attend for as little as $36. Not a Dem Club member? You can still attend with a small donation of $50!
Aarrgghhh!! Come on Progressive Caucus!! A little help? Even Progressive Caucus leaders are supporting Blue Dogs in primaries against prospective Progressives? Do the Progs even want to have more influence in Congress?
This is not even to mention that Jane Harman is the third wealthiest member of Congress, with a net worth of $112 million. She doesn't need any additional funding for her re-election campaign--she could self-fund another 20 re-election efforts. What she needs is progressive credibility to cover up her Blue Dog membership and past endorsements from Republicans. In that regard, Progressive Caucus Co-chair Lynne Woolsey is happy to deliver.
If you live in the Los Angeles area, I would strongly suggest that you attend the above meet and greet. Show up and challenge Representative Woolsey for undermining attempts replace Blue Dogs with Progressives. She should be working to increase Progressive power in Congress, not limit it. And why should we be working to support the Progressive Caucus if the Progressive Caucus leadership actively undermining our efforts to strengthen the caucus?
Even though I favored passing the gutted Senate health care bill, I am heartened by the noise some progressives are making in opposition to it. Without such noise, there would be no hope to improve the bill, or much hope of getting better health care legislation in the future. In keeping with the basic principle of the Overton window, there has to be prominent, public left-wing disagreement with Democratic policy, or else the national political discussion will never move to the left.
The degrees of acceptance of public ideas can be described roughly as:
Unthinkable
Radical
Acceptable
Sensible
Popular
Policy
The Overton Window is a means of visualizing which ideas define that range of acceptance by where they fall in it, and adding new ideas that can push the old ideas towards acceptance merely by making the limits more extreme.
Progressives looking to defeat the bill from the left are currently in either the "acceptable" or "sensible" stage. While it is pretty amazing that they have even been able to get that far in such a short period of time, they have not moved onto the "popular" stage just yet. That is why efforts like these are bound to fail, and fail spectacularly:
We also dedicate ourselves to Defeating Progressive Caucus Dems who vote for HCR without a Public Option @keithellison #p2 #fb
Such proclamations are necessary both to continue moving the national political discourse to the left, and in fostering a much needed culture of primary challenges. However, with only 16% of self-identified Democrats favoring defeating the bill (and many doing so from the right), the beliefs backing up those proclamations still have a long way to go before they become electoral winners:
In the first months of 2010, one of my main projects will be working on primary campaigns against incumbent Blue Dogs and Conservadems. These campaigns will include, but are not necessarily limited to, Marcy Winograd against Jane Harman (Blue Dog), Regina Thomas against John Barrow (Blue Dog), and Joe Sestak against Arlen Specter (recent Republican, current member of Evan Bayh's Conservadem caucus). Given the numbers quoted above, it does not take a genius to conclude that all of these primary challengers would be at a real disadvantage if they argue against the health care bill, especially if the incumbents vote in favor of it.
Primary challengers already face in terms of money, name ID, and establishment support. These challengers cannot leverage unpopular positions as compensation for those disadvantages. The only advantage progressive primary challengers can consistently have is to articulate and represent the hopes and dreams of the Democratic electorate when an incumbent Democrat has failed to do so.
There may come a time when, for left-wing reasons, defeating a bill like the one that passed the Senate becomes a popular position among the Democratic rank and file. However, that time is not going to be 2010. As it moves closer to becoming law, liberal and Democratic support of the bill is going up, not down.
The only viable progressive primary challengers we are going to have next year will be candidates who backed the bill even though they thought it had a lot of room for improvement. By the same token, the only Democrats who I hope vote against the final health care bill are center-right incumbents who face primary challenges from their left. A vote like that will make my--and I hope our--efforts to defeat those incumbents much, much easier.
Quite a few progressive bloggers are arguing that the individual mandate will prove to be unpopular, and hold long-term, negative political consequences for Democrats. Current polling on the individual mandate is all over place, some showing strong support, some showing strong opposition (PDF, page 17), and some showing a split nation. This wide variation is due not only to wording, but also because people don't really understand the policy of the mandates yet, as Kaiser polling revealed in October. Still, even though the situation is in flux, I think those who argue that the individual mandate will ultimately have a negative political affect are largely correct.
The only place where I disagree, or would at least like to expand upon, those arguments, is to assert that every outcome to the health care fight will have severely negative political consequences for the Democratic Party. There is no happy political ending at this point; it is a matter of picking your poison.
In the extended entry, I provide a quick summary of possible outcomes.
Today brings big news about primary challenges to incumbent Democrats in at least three campaigns:
Arkansas Senate, Blanche Lincoln. A new Daily Kos / Research 2000 poll shows incumbent Conservadem Blanche Lincoln is highly vulnerable to a primary challenge from Lt. Governor Bill Halter. Lincoln leads Halter, 42%-26%, even though Halter has not even entered the campaign (yet) and has a name ID 28% lower than Lincoln. That makes this a very winnable campaign for Halter.
Now, Halter is not a hardcore left-winger. As such, even if he enters the campaign, I imagine that many in the netroots won't care to support him. However, I think that would be a real mistake. If we are ever going to get power, we have to demonstrate real consequences for Democrats who lie to us. If Halter runs, it would be an excellent opportunity to deliver that payback.
If we take a pass on delivering payback to Lincoln over her lies because Halter isn't progressive enough, then really no one will give a shit what we think. However, if we deliver that payback, it puts everyone on notice. We have to produce consequence when someone stabs us in the back.
Maryland 4th, Donna Edwards. Speaking of demonstrating consequences, Rahm Emanuel knows how to do that. Back in June, Representative Lynn Woolsey claimed that the White House threatened freshman Democrats who voted against Afghanistan war funding. Given his demeanor and reputation, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Emanuel was likely doing the threatening.
Donna Edwards was one of the freshman who ended up voting against Afghan war funding. And now, she has a primary challenger from her right:
Prince George's County State's Attorney Glenn F. Ivey said Wednesday that he has decided not to run for county executive and is forming an exploratory committee to look at challenging Rep. Donna F. Edwards in the Democratic primary next year.(...)
"They represent different wings of the party. Edwards is much more liberal, and Ivey is much more moderate," Herrnson said.
Rumors are that Emanuel is encouraging this challenge. Certainly, rumors are far from proof, but it wouldn't be the first time the Emanuel has stepped into a primary, or threatened a progressive.
Georgia 12th, John Barrow. State Senator Regina Thomas is once again challenging Blue Dog John Barrow in this slightly lean-Democratic district. Thomas is looking to make an issue out of Barrow voting for the Stupak amendment, but against the health care reform package. Barrow laughably claims that, despite those votes, he is actually still pro-Obama, pro-choice, and pro-health care reform:
"Why won't he level with the people?" she asked. "The people in the 12th District deserve better."
Barrow spokeswoman Jane Brodsky rejected Thomas' contentions.
"(He) didn't vote against President Obama's health care plan," Brodsky said. "He voted against (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi's. ..
"Just because he doesn't agree with a particular legislative package doesn't mean he's opposed to reform. He believes we need all the reform we can get, but he's ... for solutions that are actually going to work."
She said he voted for the abortion measure because it applies only to public funds.
"Private plans can still cover elective abortions," she said, "and women can still use their own money to buy such coverage if they choose to do so."
The district is 45% African-American, and the primary electorate is nearly 75% African-American. Barrow won the primary in 2008 due to a combination of Obama cutting an ad for him (the Obama ad was Barrow's entire campaign), and Thomas running a lackluster campaign.
Much will depend on whether Obama is willing to cut an ad for Barrow again. If he is not, then Thomas could unseat Barrow.
Primaries remain one of the few leverage points we have with Congress. I say we lean on the lever as often, and as hard, as possible.
Is President Obama becoming vulnerable to a primary challenge in 2012? Further, is there any chance that challenge could be from the left?
Looking President Obama's job approval by partisan and ideological self-identification, looking at the partisan and ideological self-identification of the Democratic primary electorate as a whole, one can quickly answer "no" to both of those questions.:
Obama job approval by partisan and ideological self-identification, within the Democratic primary electorate
Ideology and Party
% of Dem primary electorate
Presidential Job Approval
Liberal Dem
37%
87%
Moderate Dem
30%
81%
Conservative Dem
9%
70%
Liberal Ind
9%
79%
Moderate Ind
7%
43%
Conservative Ind
3%
28%
Lib-Mod Rep
2%
28%
Conservative Rep
1%
10%
(Source for primary electorate composition: here Source for job approval by partisan and ideological self-ID: here and here)
Overall, this chart gives President Obama a 75% approval rating among the Democratic primary electorate. Further, exactly two-thirds of the primary electorate that does not approve of President Obama's job performance self-identifies as either moderate or conservative, while only one-third is liberal. This means that, at least right now, President Obama is not vulnerable to a primary challenge, and what little danger he faces comes primarily from his right, not his left.
Health care reform must build upon what works and improve inefficiencies. Individuals should be able to choose from a range of quality health insurance plans. Options should include private plans as well as a quality, affordable public plan or non-profit plan that can accomplish the same goals of a public plan.
Blanche Lincoln is a liar. She signs a document stating that she supports the public option. Her website says that she would be fine with a public option. And then she does on the floor of the Senate, and promises to filibuster any bill with a public option.
There is still a real possibility that Lincoln could face a high-profile primary challenge next year. The challenger won't be a great progressive, but would still be an improvement over the lying Blanche Lincoln. Further, Arkansas remains a Democratic state at all but the Presidential level, and so that primary challenger might very well have a better chance in the general election than Lincoln.
Let's hope that primary challenge starts sooner, rather than later. Blanche Lincoln is a lair, and needs to be removed from office.
This is also an open thread on the health care vote tonight, which passed 60-39. Senator Voinovich of Ohio did not attend.
Determining which members of Congress would have voted against the health care reform bill if the Stupak amendment had not been included is actually pretty easy:
House Whip James Clyburn said that the Stupak amendment netted ten votes:
"It was not 40 votes that we were trying to get with this amendment it was 10 votes. And that's the fact," Clyburn said on MSNBC. "This language took us across the threshold of 218, but it was 10 people. It wasn't 40 people as has been reported."
On July 1st, 26 House Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi threatening to vote against the final bill unless the Stupak amendment was included. Of those 26, nine ended up voting for the bill:
Republican Joseph Cao also indicated he would have voted against the bill if not for the Stupak amendment.
Viola. Clyburn's ten votes are pretty easy to find.
There were 220 votes for health care reform in the House, and 218 will be required for passage on the conference report. So, in order to pass health care reform in the House without the Stupak amendment language, Democrats will need to replace as many as eight of these ten votes.
The best place to find those eight new votes would be from the 16 members of the House who voted against both the Stupak amendment and the final bill. These members thus opposed the bill for reasons that had nothing to do with the Stupak amendment:
It's a motley group that includes both conservatives from ultra-red districts (like Edwards and Minnick) and Progressives who ostensibly voted against the bill as the remnants of the Progressive Block (Kucinich and Massa). Perhaps the most notable feature of this group is that ten out of the sixteen members are in their first-term, compared to only two out of ten in the group that voted for the bill only because of the Stupak language.
These are the lists we have to work with to pass a health care bill without Stupak language, and with a public option. Off-hand, the easiest eight might be Kaptur (Progressive), Murtha (leadership), Boyd (primary challenge), Kissell (threats from donors, doesn't raise money well), Kucinich (Progressive, often faces primary challenges), Massa (Progressive), Murphy (never actually had to win a primary, still might face one) and someone.
It is a small enough group, and features enough members of either blue or purple districts, that primary challenges could potentially do the trick. I am not actually in favor of running primary challenges against people who voted against the health care bill, voted against Stupak, and co-sponsored Medicare for All, but there still should be enough blue and purple districts to get this done either way.
Thank you for contacting my office regarding a proposal to amend the Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I appreciate hearing your comments on this important matter.
In 1996, the Congress passed and the President signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I supported the passage of this legislation. This law has two important facets. First, the law defines marriage for the purpose of the Federal government as a union between one man and one woman. Second, it provides that no state or local jurisdiction may be forced to recognize a legal union created in another state or jurisdiction, if the definition of that union is contradictory to their own.
The legalization of same sex marriage in states such as Connecticut, Iowa, and Massachusetts has led many citizens to believe it is necessary to amend the United States Constitution in order to protect traditional marriage. Although I support traditional marriage as defined in DOMA, and although I appreciate the goal of the proposed amendment, I do not believe it is necessary to amend the Constitution at this time.
I believe this is an issue most appropriately addressed at the state level, and most states are working hard to protect marriage. Indeed, nearly every state has enacted statutory or constitutional protection for traditional marriage. Furthermore, DOMA ensures those states will not be forced to recognize unions created in the handful of states with legalized same-sex marriage. Therefore, I believe it is premature to amend our founding document at this time.
Thank you for contacting my office regarding proposals to amend the Constitution to protect traditional marriage. Rest assured I will keep your thoughts on this issue in mind if the Senate considers this issue or any related issue. Should you have any further questions, please contact my office or visit my website at www.specter.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter
The blogger who posted this letter, Hedo, has confirmed to me over email that this letter was received on September 22nd.
Arlen Specter is engaging in some of the more absurdly bald-faced flips that I have ever seen a candidate engage. He does not care about policy or ideological consistency--only about getting elected.
This all might be tolerable if Specter was simply saying that he was representing the majority wishes of his constituents. However, he keeps claiming that these about-faces are based on principle. Again, if Specter were to admit that his highest principle is getting elected, I would agree with him.
Imagine if every conservative Democrat had a primary challenge like Arlen Specter. Would there even be any question about passing the entire Obama administration agenda?
Reward good behavior--support Joe Sestak. The second Arlen Specter no longer faces a serious primary challenge, the second he no longer cares what progressives think.
Third quarter fundraising numbers are slowly trickling in. I am pretty sure they will show no Congressional candidate in the country has more than Arlen Specter.
And you know what? Even though I am working to elect Joe Sestak here in my home state, that's fine. This is because Joe Sestak has already won the campaign.
Sestak's victory may come as a bit of surprise, especially to those at Arlen Specter's $10,000-a-plate fundraisers that shut down the entire Senate. But Joe Sestak is already voting in the Senate by proxy, via Arlen Specter. Sestak's primary challenge has caused Specter to come around to the point of view of the majority of the Democratic Party) on every major issue since he entered the race.
Rand Paul is in a reasonably close primary for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Kentucky. According to the two polls on the campaign, he trails Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson by an average of 13%. With the money bombs that the Paulites will send his way, with the teabaggers looking to become a force in Republican primaries, and with the general anti-establishment mood in the air right now, he could really win that nomination.
Given this, as a progressive, I have to wonder if there is a good reason why I shouldn't be contributing to Rand Paul's campaign for Kentucky Senate. My quick analysis suggests that such a contribution would be for the good of the cause.
First, if Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination for Kentucky Senate, current polling indicates that it would improve the chances of the Democratic nominee to win the campaign. In every poll, Paul performs worse than Grayson against both potential Democratic candidates.
Second, if Rand is anything like his father--and he certainly seems to be--then even if he were to win the general election, he would defect and vote with Democrats more often than any Republican Senator outside the state of Maine. On the votes that matter, Rand Paul's father, Ron, votes with progressives more often than any other Republican in Congress-- except for Rodney Alexander who was a Democrat until mid-2004 (Ralph Hall, third among Republicans who vote with progressives, was a Democrat until 1995). With a lifetime progressive crucial votes ranking of 23.50%, Paul even leaves supposed Republican moderates like Mike Castle (15.40%) and Mark Kirk (10.30%) in the dust. Paul towers over life-long Republicans when it comes to voting with Democrats.
Grayson, by contrast, would just be another drone in the Republican Borg collective, who we could count on for exactly zero votes of any importance. Paul would legitimately be much, much better than Grayson.
Hell, even the Democrats who might win would probably only be reliable on 50-70% of the most important votes, which is only about twice as many as we would get from Rand Paul. Further, we wouldn't have spend massive amounts of DSCC money, or water down legislation even before it reached the floor, to appeal to / defend Rand Paul's seat. We would get his 25% progressive voting record for free.
Not that I am saying I would work for Rand Paul in the general election. Just that I am saying I don't see why I shouldn't become a Rand Paul activist in the Republican primary. This is a Republican primary where the two main potential outcomes have a clear difference in quality for progressives. Whether or not he goes on to win the general election, Rand Paul securing the Republican nomination for Senate in Kentucky is a win-win for progressives. Why shouldn't I be working to make that happen?
A new Quinnipiac poll in the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary shows Congressman Joe Sestak not only gaining significant ground on Senator Arlen Specter, but ahead among Pennsylvania Democrats who have enough about both candidates to form an opinion.
479 total registered Dems (MoE = +/- 4.5%) among whom 163 registered Dems (MoE = +/- 7.7%) that have an opinion about both Specter and Sestak.
(If registered Democrat) If the 2010 Democratic primary for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak, for whom would you vote?
All Democrats (July numbers in parenthesis)
Specter: 44% (55%)
Sestak: 25% (23%)
Democrats who have heard of both candidates
Sestak: 43%
Specter: 39%
The subset of 163 Democrats who know both candidates was sent to me, by request, from the Quinnipiac polling institute. So, I guess that makes it an Open Left exclusive!
By the end of the campaign, Specter's name ID advantage will have significantly dissipated, if not disappeared entirely. When that happens, it will be advantage Sestak.
