"the New Dems and Blue Dogs go left because of public pressure" (4.00 / 2)

How do you know it's not the pressure to go right, in order to ally with House Republicans?

McCain sides with Bush against war veterans

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:27:29 PM CDT

becuase (0.00 / 0)

None of them have remotely come close to accepting House Republican overtures or policy ideas.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:28:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Heath Shuler (4.00 / 2)

voted with Republicans on FISA and Iraq war funding. In his conservative, western NC district, he feels pressure to go right.  

McCain sides with Bush against war veterans

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:33:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bullshit. Blue Dogs (and to some degree DLCers) are fiscal conservatives. (0.00 / 0)

The big 700 billion freaked them out just like the House Republicans.  Their resistance to the bailout is no less Hooverian than the GOP resistance.

---

by: YuedoTiko @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:38:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One way to find out for sure (4.00 / 2)

 Frank can craft a more progressive, taxpayer-friendly bill.

 If the Blue Dogs support THAT, then we'll know the pressure's coming from the left, not the right.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:53:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Left/right is less important in this instance than neweconomy/oldeconomy (4.00 / 1)

Sirota's thesis is very useful here.  As I commented below, the economic base of the district is a very big tell on the Democratic votes.  Gene Taylor, Travis Childers, Jim Matheson, Mike Michaud, Mike Thompson, and Peter Welch are all voting out of pretty similar instincts, I'd hazard: the instinct that their rural constituents, who don't feel personally invested in or exposed to Wall Street, will not like a giveaway of their tax dollars to some Other.

I don't think Gene Taylor is drunk on Jeb Hensarling's socialism terror.  I don't think the rural Democrats are voting with the same motives that the batshit crazy Republicans are.  I think they see it as their district, a bunch of economic losers, being forced to hand over money to Wall Street, a bunch of predatory, rapacious economic winners.

The correlation between yes votes and per-capita GDP of district should be very very very strong on the Democratic side.  The only exceptions will be a few wealth centers that aren't connected to New York (Austin's rep voted no), and some very wealthy, very progressive districts whose incumbents fear a primary (and there probably won't be many of those either).  

Whereas, the correlation between yes votes and per-capita GDP of district I predict will not exist on the GOP side.  Some very big nutbars from very wealthy districts (Houston suburbs, for instance) voted no.  Because they're insane, addled on their freemarket ideology.  Not because they see a class war here.  If they were defending the economic interests of their constituents, more of them would have voted yes.

---

by: texas dem @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:00:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Up-down, old-new (0.00 / 0)

Lots of interesting correlations to draw here. But one conclusion that there is very little evidence for is that a more progressive bill would have drawn more yes votes from Blue Dogs, First-Timers, and others feeling election pressure, which is what Matt is saying. David's point about "George W. Bush as  the lamest of lame ducks" makes the most sense to me as an explanation for the failure of the bailout -- that and the fact that no other strong leadership  presence (could you see a House led by LBJ suffering this embarrassment?) stepped in to fill the void.

McCain sides with Bush against war veterans

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:19:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure these numbers are statistically significant. (0.00 / 0)

If you randomly allocated the know votes across the Democratic caucus you could easily get a similar breakdown. I'm not saying there isn't any correlation- just that there isn't necessarily one.

---

by: Jack @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:36:03 PM CDT

Marcy Kaptur (0.00 / 0)

for Senate, 2010.  

---

by: Ron @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:39:48 PM CDT

Regional split (4.00 / 1)

Regional pressures worked pretty powerfully here.  New York, for example, voted for the bailout by a 25-4 margin with 3 Democrats and one Republican against.  The plea was out regionally that this was a vote to preserve jobs "for the secretaries and clerks" (yeah, right, like they got all thay obscene bonus money).  Only one NYC rep, Jose Serrano, voted no.  By contrast, Arizona (which is split 4-4) voted  zero yes and 8 no and Georgia went 2-11.

In the WaPO regional counts, only the Northeast voted for the bailout with the midwest, south, and west voting against.

This failed because a lot of CA Democrats voted no (14 by my count).  This failed because a lot of Hispanic and black Democrats voted no. And this failed because a heck of a lot of Republicans voted no.

Future bailouts have to do more for the homeowner OR subscibe to Republican pressures.  I guess this vote, even more than the immigration vote, defined George W. Bush as  the lamest of lame ducks.  They need to reach out to the concerns of the black and hispanic communities not just to Wall Street.

It was a 108 page bill with no time to look at the fine print and too much on the line.  We have gone down that road with George W on Iraq.  Even a $100 billion with the remainder to be looked at after the country has a new President and Treasury Secretary would have been better.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:46:31 PM CDT

Ellison: Lots of finance jobs in his District. (0.00 / 0)

The "War on Drugs" is "Government Waste."

---

by: Ben Masel @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:47:43 PM CDT

Ellison (0.00 / 0)

has a degree in economics and understands this issue deeply. He made the right vote.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 00:04:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Early pattern I'm seeing is upscale vs downscale districts. (0.00 / 0)

Or more specifically, whether a district's economic base is "high economy" or, um, "old economy."

So the rurals voting against -- Mike Michaud, Gene Taylor, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Travis Childers -- doesn't surprise me at all.  "Conservative" reputation matters less here than the insider/outsider dynamic that Sirota has been working on.

And the high-urbans and suburbans voting for also doesn't surprise me.  Kieth Ellison, Tammy Baldwin, the New York delegation, the Bay Area and Los Angeles and Miami delegations.  Some very progressive people on that list, and not just the ones in leadership either.

Meanwhile, the progressive rurals are against, as well as a lot of the CBC and CHC (I'd really like to see you add that to your spreadsheet Matt).  Peter Welch and Steve Cohen both against, because their districts are not exposed to Wall Street, or at least people living there think they are not.  

What really surprises me is the New Dem percentage.  This proposal has New Dem written all over it.  A lot of the New Dems against are freshmen in competitive races; it might also be interesting to do another spreadsheet with all the districts that are competitive in 5 weeks dropped off (there's only about 15).  That might give a better sense of what the caucuses do when they're not under severe electoral pressure.  (Also we could look at the 15 who are under pressure separately, to see what they did: the "electoral jeopardy" caucus.)

---

by: texas dem @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:49:37 PM CDT

Kagen, tight race, only WI D against. (0.00 / 0)

The "War on Drugs" is "Government Waste."

---

by: Ben Masel @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:55:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree (0.00 / 0)

Sestak and Murphy in PA are in fairly well to do counties that were very red in 2004. Neither won their race in a walk last cycle. I think they were voting what they perceived to be the pocketbook of their constituents. IIRC Vanguard is hq'd in Sestak's district. Don't see him voting against it as much as I would have liked to see it.

---

by: RevDeb @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:11:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm in Sestak's district (0.00 / 0)

He won by 17 points over an 8-term incumbent.  

---

by: Weeferdog @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:52:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

lets face it .. (0.00 / 0)

a lot of Progressive Dems only voted yes because Pelosi and Hoyer got on bended knee(like Paulson did the other day) and begged and pleaded with them to vote yes ... and probably promised them other things down the road

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:15:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of the 50 members in close (0.00 / 0)

races according to Cooke, 16 voted yes and 34 voted no.

---

by: fladem @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:55:50 PM CDT

fascinating (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 15:57:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's across both parties? (0.00 / 0)

Meaning the Lean R, Tossup, and Lean D columns I guess?

---

by: texas dem @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:04:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

profiles in courage, all (0.00 / 0)

I guess I have to rethink peoiple like Issa and Bachmann, also.  Never knew they were such populists ... I can think about it during my third job at Burger King as my 401-K melts.  But as long as those 'fat cats' suffer!  Because we all know they will, right?  RIGHT?

---

by: Weeferdog @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:55:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Seats that turned Blue in 2006 (0.00 / 0)

Not sure if anyone has done this already, but...

I have taken a look at the 31 Democratic Congressmen who won in 2006 by taking a Congressional District that had previously been held by a Republican or an Independent.

Of those 31:

- 13 voted FOR
- 18 voted AGAINST

So, whereas the Democratic Caucus as a whole supported the Bill by a ratio of 3:2, those 31 newly-elected Dems opposed the Bill by roughly the same ratio.

What does this mean?  Well, it could mean a number of things.  But one might reasonably infer that those Dems in the most marginal seats were less inclined to support the Bill.

Probably not that interesting, but what the heck!

---

by: alec @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:35:42 PM CDT

Roll Call Vote (0.00 / 0)

Where can we find the roll call vote?  I've been looking everywhere and can't find it.  The house site is currently missing a listing for the actual vote:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/200...

It shows the amendments from this morning (roll call 670 and 671) and then it shows the morning adjournment (672 and 673).  And then there's HR3997 (tax code stuff) and HR 7175 (Small business thingy) as roll call 674 and 675.  Those last two were done after the bailout vote.

So what gives?  And where can i find out how my house member voted?

---

by: DanDrasin @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:38:15 PM CDT

Answered my own question (0.00 / 0)

Here's a link (not official i guess, but still...)

http://www.nwprogressive.org/w...

---

by: DanDrasin @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:58:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Udalls (0.00 / 0)

should be included in the count because they are both in Senate races and a populist run against especially Mark could be fatal.

---

by: msobel @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:40:57 PM CDT

a 'populist run' by Schaffer? (0.00 / 0)

Have we all gone mad?  

---

by: Weeferdog @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:56:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Progressives Actually 52% Ayes? (0.00 / 0)

From your great spreadsheet (thanks!), I count 35 Ayes and 32 Nays, which flips the %s to 52% Ayes and 48% Nays.

---

by: nicolecepr @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:42:21 PM CDT

Political cowardice--- WTF?!? (0.00 / 0)

The bailout failed because of pure political cowardice. I used the Rothenberg Political Report to find the House incumbents who are in tough races (i.e. ones they could lose). There were 44 House members listed - 20 Democrats and 24 Republicans. Of those 44, only eight voted for the bill.

Political cowardice?  W.t.f.?!!?

I would be inclined to call this "listening to your constituency". I.e. democracy

Cunha for Congress (FL-06)

P.S. I'm not a big fan of John McCain

---

by: madahnuc @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 17:42:01 PM CDT

McIntyre (0.00 / 0)

I was pleasantly surprised with McIntyre's vote.  His challenger in the election I know was against the bailout but he's not a real threat.

The local paper describes McIntyre accurately enough.

What has John McCain done for veterans?

---

by: abburdlen @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 19:41:44 PM CDT