Naming Names: Who Defected on the Health Care Vote?

oh the shame (0.00 / 0)

Gordon voted that way, after the emails and "town meeting." He is an incumbent who I don't think is safe in the next election. I think he has now tried to have his cake and eat it too too many times.

---

by: suzihussein22 @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 15:17:39 PM UTC

TN reps... (0.00 / 0)

I hear you on that.. I wouldn't be suprised if he loses, but unless thats in the primary, the republican to replace him won't be any better..  I wasn't suprised to see 3 TN democrats on that list..  But I am on the east side of the state, and there isn't a democrat in sight. :-(  

There really is truth to the increasing percentage of republicans in the south, and unfortunately they are the "new" breed of republicans.. I think with that observation comes the fact that even the Democrats are going to be overwhelmingly right to try to be re-elected.  I think he probably felt that the only way he would win the swing voters is to go against the progressive democrats.  But that is just my opinion.

---

by: kat @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 16:35:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Breakdown by District (0.00 / 0)

I went to a posting of the Cook Partisan Vote Index to look at the districts represented by the defectors -- 14 of them represent districts with a PVI in excess of R+10, another 12 of them represent districts with a PVI between R+6 and R+10.

The fact that all of them were with the party on the Republican Substitute and most of them were with the party on the motion to recommit (and have been with the party on other legislation like the stimulus bill and EFCA) may be as much as we can expect for people from those districts.

Another 9 were from districts that lean Republican by R+5 or less with 1 from an exactly even district.

The real villians of the piece are the ones from Democratic districts -- Barrow (from a lean Democratic district) and Artur Davis from a district with a PVI in excess of D+10.  If folks want someone to target in a primary, Mr. Davis would be at the top of my list.

As far as the amendment, that vote was more about abortion than about health care.  In many districts, a Democrat has to be pro-life to be elected and this vote was being scored by the pro-life groups.

---

by: tmess2 @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 20:45:18 PM UTC

Hmmmm.... (0.00 / 0)

Instead of a Thank You to Congressman Cao from DCW for his vote - I wake up and see a despicable quote from a Freeper website at the top of the DCW page and on top of that there isn't a clear indication of who actually said the quote unless the tiny hyperlink is click upon.
What's up with that?

THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN CAO for your vote!

---

by: Leah @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 21:07:36 PM UTC

Geez Leah (0.00 / 0)

I didn't mean it as an insult -- I MEANT IT AS A COMPLIMENT -- same as when the IIE calls us "socialists" --

I think, and wrote -- that this could be a game changer from him -- it could GET HIM RE-ELECTED. I didn't take it from a right wing site, I took it from another left wing site.

I have seen later that the actual right wing is saying HORRIBLE things about him, which appalls me -- I thought it was cute, and meant him no offense. He voted in the way he thought supported the majority of his district, and it will serve him well. Which is why I said..

For all the turncoat "Democrats" who voted against: think what it means if an endangered Republican is re-elected BECAUSE of this vote...

---

by: DocJess @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 01:12:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Matheson (0.00 / 0)

It will be interesting to see if there is a district for Jim Matheson after the census. Utah is certain to get another seat and our state legislature is one of the most despicable in the nation. They have already tried once to gerrymander him out of office, and I know they will again. I am afraid that the man has no choice but to continue running to the right, and even then I don't think anything short of changing to an (R) will save him.

Please continue this conversation if you want by finding me on twitter @Lord_Chadeous

---

by: ChadCo @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 02:26:12 AM UTC

Does the Democratic Party support diversity or Scozzafava-cation (0.00 / 0)

I support most of the comments in this thread that sympathize with the supposed defectors in the House who voted against the party on the HC Bill.

I believe in HC for all and am stupak-fide a majority of the members of congress would pass a idiotically stupak Amendment that discriminates against women. Worst of all the thought that members of the US legislature would want the Church to give them permission to vote for a Bill or amendment sickens me.

HOWEVER, I don't support the idea of witch-hunts, purity tests, and threatening Congressmen and Senators who don't vote for the bills I would vote for. I honor the wide range of views in the Democratic Party, and believe that an honest internal debate of our views keeps our party alive and prosperous.

I believe its a great idea to write all these congressmen and VEHEMENTLY explain why we disagree with their views, but to threaten them, to run candidates against them, is to follow the Republican play-book and marginalize the party.

Ben Spector
NYC


Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans. - Will Rogers

---

by: benjaminspector @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:01:56 AM UTC

There are defectors, and then there are defectors (0.00 / 0)

I think it all depends on who they are and what CD they're from. There are probably 10-15 names on this lost who are probably lost causes - they're going to lose to the Republican in 2010 no matter what they do. And losing those Dems will make no difference to achieving progressive goals, since we never get their vote anyway. Supporting a primary against them is a waste of time. And I think there's a reasonable point that giving money to the DCCC, which will then go to help these folks is a waste of money that could be better spent supporting endangered real progressives.  

Also, when you're in a large majority, things are different. If we lose 10-15 Dems, but no votes, we actually look more unified then we do now, but with no effect on passing legislation. Sure we take a psychological hit after the election, but I don't think there's any real damage.

The rest have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. There are a few who are in Dem-leaning districts, and who are relatively safe for reelection. For those few, maybe 4-5, primary challenges are worth taking a good look at.

---

by: Matt @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 13:05:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's one: Larry Kissell (NC) (0.00 / 0)

From The Fix:

As for Kissell, his "no" vote is close to inexplicable given the heavy black population in his district (28 percent) and the fact that the president carried it by five points last November.
-----------------------------
Kissell was a darling of the netroots, but if we can't get his vote on matters like this, why not challenge him from the left?

---

by: Matt @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 13:12:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No one to the left of Kissell would win that district. (4.00 / 1)

I agree with Cillizza on a lot of things, but his take on Kissell is off base.  He cherry-picked one demographic characteristic from the 8th district in NC and tried to make something out of it.  Kissell is a freshman.  He won in the second of two Democratic wave elections and has never won a close election (...for Congress).  His 2010 re-election will be close.  Some will argue that will be because he voted no on both health care and climate change.  I'd counter that that may affect him, but at the margins.  This is an R+2 (Cook PVI) district. Voting for either would have mobilized far more Republicans against him than voting against it will mobilize Democrats against him.  

This whole turncoat nonsense is just that: nonsense.  The Democratic leadership in the House would not have allowed that bill to come to the floor unless they had the votes.  And 218 is all you need.  Winning with 39 more votes would have made no difference. A win is a win (especially considering what more would have to have been sacrificed to get those other Democrats on board).  If passing the bill is important, then why not (as the leadership did) allow some of your most electorally vulnerable members to have some cover on an especially high salience issue?  Look the Democrats had 40 passes and only used 39 of them.

---

by: Josh Putnam @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 17:48:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

a point of view (0.00 / 0)

i think it is important to remember, as much as i want this bill to pass, as much as i would rather a single payer to pass. i doubt there is anybody on this list that thinks the GOPer from La. is a bad guy for voting with us, if that is so, it is hard to see why we should be angry at those on "our" team, who voted no. especially if they knew the vote was a go. holding toss up districts is a tough game. sure sometimes i would like to just let the bluedogs go, but better any of those guys than a hoffman or a toomey. in some districts, the voters will not stand for progressiveness, we can either settle go a guy who doesnt fight us on EVERYTHING, or demand purity and then we will be the IIE, too.

---

by: UplandPoet @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 19:56:40 PM UTC

When to primary people (0.00 / 0)

Think about mounting challenges to people who actually obstructed Democratic goals. As Josh and others pointed out, "no" votes did nothing to us here.

That's not as true for some of the Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, who voted against progressive measures in Committee that ended up failing. They're not just looking for political cover; we needed their votes. And if anyone dares vote against cloture on a Senate health care bill, the Party should be very, very displeased with them. People like Landrieu will hopefully vote for cloture. They can then vote against the bill if they want, as long as we get 50 + Biden.

---

by: SarahLawrence Scott @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:45:47 AM UTC