Subject: [big campaign] New Huff Post from Creamer on Health Care Reform Battle
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:53:03 EDT
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

History Shows That Democrats Representing the Most  Republican Districts 
Have the Most To Lose If Congress Fails To Pass Obama  Health Care Plan 

In the current health care debate, Democratic Members of Congress  
representing swing districts have often (though not always) been among the most  
cautious when it comes to supporting President Obama’s proposals for health 
care  reform. 
In many ways  that is understandable.  They often  come from districts that 
are more conservative than those of their  colleagues.  They have the least 
 margin for error if they cast a vote that causes swing voters to shift 
their  electoral allegiance.  They are the  targets of ad campaigns from groups 
trying to influence their votes. They hear  the most from conservative 
advocacy organizations and interest groups.  
But in fact, history shows that  these swing district Democrats have the 
most to lose if Congress fails to pass  President Obama’s sweeping health care 
proposal – and for that matter the other  major components of his economic 
agenda. 
The reason is simple: Obama’s success in passing his agenda will have an  
enormous impact on his approval rating with the American people – and the  
approval rating of Congressional Democrats as well.   When Swing District 
Democrats face the  voters next year, those two factors will have a massive 
effect on whether they  return to Congress. 
History demonstrates that just as  a rising tide lifts all boats, the boats 
left grounded when the tide goes out  are the ones in the shallowest 
electoral water.   
In elections, people do indeed vote for the personal qualities of the  
candidate.  But every election  campaign begins where people are – with a 
particular mix of predispositions  toward one party or another that is impacted by 
how they think the respective  parties are doing standing up for the things 
they care about.  
In America today, Barack Obama is the  symbolic embodiment of the 
Democratic Party for most Americans.  His success at passing health care  reform, 
energy legislation, bank re-regulation and achieving an economic  recovery will 
have a big impact on how they think Democrats are doing – whether  they 
start out with an inclination to vote Democratic, or to take another bet on  
the Republicans. 
In the first four years of his Presidency, Bill Clinton never had job  
approval ratings comparable to Barack Obama’s.  But in early 1994 he had a 
positive  rating of 48% and a negative of only 39% -- a net positive of 9% in the 
CBS-New  York Times poll.  By the time Senate  Majority leader George 
Mitchell declared Clinton’s health care reform proposal dead in  September 1994, 
he had slipped to 42 positive and 49 negative –  minus 7% net negative.  He 
had suffered a 16% swing in the  polls.  By mid-term Election Day in  1994 
he still had a net negative of -5% (43% positive, 48% negative).  
Congressional approval ratings followed the same negative path, falling  
almost 10% during 1994 to just above 20% right before the cataclysmic 1994  
election when Newt Gingrich’s Republican majority took power for the first 
time  in 40 years.  
The Republican –special-interest attack on the Clinton health care reform  
plan certainly had an effect on these numbers.  But just as important was 
the failure of  the President and Congress to pass his program.  People 
support winners.  Obama’s campaign exploded when he won  Iowa – had he  come in 
second that wouldn’t have happened.  
Everything we know about psychology tells us that we like people when  they 
win, we don’t like them as much when they lose.  We are more likely to 
follow them when  they win.  We’re more likely to  think they know what they’re 
doing when they win.  
What’s more, if they lose a legislative battle, we are more likely to  
believe that the proposal they were promoting was a loser too – a bad idea, a  
dog. 
That goes for  the voters in swing districts like anywhere else.  A 
President – a Congress – a Democratic  party that wins, that successfully makes 
change to improve people’s lives, is  simply more likely to get voter support 
than one that fails to make change,  fails to deliver the goods, or looks 
disorganized and powerless -- and promotes  policies that “lose.”  
In addition, losing demoralizes the hard core.  They are less likely to 
work hard, and  to turn out to vote. 
That is exactly what happened in the 1994 elections.  Democrats lost 54 
seats.  Of those, 36 were incumbents.  It wasn’t the members from strong  
Democratic districts, who had fought hard for health care reform, who lost.  It 
was mainly members from swing  districts, rural districts and southern 
districts. 
The Clinton health care bill never came to a vote  in the House, but only 
11 of the 36 incumbents who lost had co-sponsored the  bill.  Many of the 23 
others had  opposed the Clinton health care plan.  Didn’t matter; they were 
the biggest  political victims of the failure of health care reform.  
Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper (D-TN) was one of the leaders of the  
opposition.  He left the House to  run for the Senate in 1994 and lost.  
And it wasn’t just that swing voters lost faith in Democrats.  Base 
Democratic voters failed to turn  out.  Republican base voters –  smelling 
Democratic blood – turned out in record numbers. 
Of course none of this should come as a surprise.  Look at our recent 
political  history.  The principal political  victims of the disastrous Bush 
legacy were not mainly hard right Republicans  from strong Republican districts. 
 They were often Republican “moderates” like Connecticut’s Christopher  
Shays. That’s why New England no longer has any  Republican Members of the 
House. That’s why the Republican Caucus in the House  is now mainly composed of 
members from highly Republican districts and the  South.      
So the next time a Member of  Congress tells you that he’d love to vote for 
the President’s health care reform  package, but he represents a tough 
swing district, remind him about all the  ex-members of Congress who said the 
same thing in 1994 and were retired by the  voters to resume their careers 
selling insurance or practicing law.  
They are much better off taking  the political risk of helping a Democratic 
President be successful in passing  health care reform than they are taking 
the political risk of opposing a  Democratic President who then fails to 
pass health care reform.   
The odds are very good that if  they choose the latter course, it will be 
their political bodies on the gurneys  being rolled into the political 
emergency room. 
Robert Creamer is a longtime political organizer and strategist, and  
author of the recent book:  Stand Up  Straight: How Progressives Can Win, 
available on _Amazon.com._ 
(http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Your-Mother-Straight-Progressives/dp/0979585295/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213241439&sr=8-1) 

**************Performance you need and the value you want! Check out great 
laptop deals from Dell! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1223081934x1201714279/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D819
39%2D1629%2D4)

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---