Poll: Ben Nelson in political trouble

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Politico

A new poll suggests that Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) seriously endangered his political prospects by becoming the decisive 60th vote allowing health care legislation to pass through the Senate.

The Rasmussen survey shows Nelson, who isn’t up for re-election until 2012, badly trailing Gov. Dave Heineman by 31 points in a hypothetical matchup, 61 to 30 percent. A 55 percent majority of Nebraska voters now hold an unfavorable view of the two-term senator, with 40 percent viewing him favorably.

The health care bill is currently very unpopular in Nebraska, according to the Rasmussen poll. Nearly two-thirds of voters (64 percent) oppose the legislation while just 17 percent approve.

Heineman has attacked Nelson’s support for health care reform, even as the senator cut a deal exempting Nebraska from new Medicaid payments and other home-state goodies.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1209/Poll_Ben_Nelson_in_political_trouble.html

[SpiralHawk]

1. "This toupeed clown is acting like a republicon." - Nebraskarians

"And if we know one thang, it's that America don't need no more freaking toupee republicons."

- Nebraskarians

[saigon68]

79. Hey Nice RUG on dudes Melon

It looks like an aged wolverine pelt.

[Subdivisions]

2. 64% of Nebraskans opposed the bill and yet he voted in favor of it anyway?

I guess he thinks he's in DC to represent corporate insurance entities rather than the citizens of his state. Sounds like he's getting what he deserves.

[TwilightGardener]

8. Depends on how one sees the bill. I am a Nebraskan who wants it to pass

because it's a step forward. I am surrounded by Teabagger types who want nothing that's "soshulism" even if it kills them (unless it's farm subsidies--that's not socialism, that's a just reward to the patriotic farmer!). Ben is in a tight spot here, trying to please the Democrats, the Republicans AND the insurance co's.

[12string]

12. 64% oppose the bill

Ben Nelson is supposed to represent his constituents.You may have wanted it to pass,but you are in the minority.Senator Nelson was wrong to vote for a bill that the majority of the people he represents did not support.

[TwilightGardener]

15. They don't support it because they're fucking Republicans--not

because they're all kinds of pissy-pants over losing the public option and the bill not being progressive enough. If Nelson voted the way his constituents wanted, he'd vote with the Democratic party MUCH LESS OFTEN than he does. Which is why Democrats put up with him here--we do get something out of him that we wouldn't get with a GOPer Senator.

[Uncle Joe]

34. How did they feel about the Wall Street Bailout of major banks?

The problem with this bill as written is in it being the worst of both worlds, liberals, progressives, and populists should hate it because it rewards for profit health insurance corporations; the primary villains behind our health care crisis.

Conservatives and libertarians should hate it for being a government imposed mandate.

When you combine those two elements, along with the knowledge that for profit "health" insurance corporations have led the way in lobbying, aka: bribe money to the Congress, how could Nelson or anyone else defend it to their constituency?

If it were true socialism that being Medicare for everyone from the cradle to the grave or at least had a strong public option, it could be defended on high moral grounds, as it is this is a forced mandate on the American People to not only continue, but to strengthen the same dysfunctional, blood money for profit system which millions of Americans have come to despise.

[24601]

43. They are just as entitled to their reasons as you are to yours n/t

[girl gone mad]

56. 64% of Nebraskans are Republicans?

I seriously doubt that.

[foo_bar]

58. doesn't seem far off

In the 2004 presidential election, George W. Bush won the state's five electoral votes by a 33% margin (the fourth-most Republican vote among states) with 65.9% of the overall vote; only Thurston County, which includes two American Indian reservations, voted for John Kerry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska

433,862(62.2%) Bush
231,780(33.2%) Gore

http://www.presidentelect.org/e2000.html

[girl gone mad]

70. Nope.

Republicans only had a 7% advantage in NE in 2008.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/state-states-political-party-affiliation.aspx

That's more like 53% Republicans, at best. So plenty of the people opposing the health "reform" bill are either Independents or Democrats.

[foo_bar]

71. in fairness, voters in (general or otherwise) elections aren't representative of "Nebraskans"

except in a plebiscite legal sense, since only a fraction of Nebraskans of voting age turn out in a given election. In terms of how Nebraskans register to vote:

October 2006 General Election Voter Registration Data

* Registered voters: 1,138,069
* Registered Democrats : 370,600 (33% of total)
* Registered Republicans: 572,869 (50% of total)
* Nonpartisan: 187,004 (16% of total)
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/05/08/nebraska-primary-facts-and-figures.html

Of the 943469 people who registered for a major party in NE 2006, 60.75% registered repub, but the "Nonpartisan" bloc appears to be the balance of power, except it votes for republicans in general elections (with the exception of 2008, and Ben Nelson (maybe)); perhaps Nebraska is becoming bluer, but compared to all but a handful of the other 49 states (most of which were "bluer" in 2008) it's a hard sell.

[jmowreader]

77. How many Nebraskan Republicans stayed home in 11/08?

Or voted for a third-party candidate, or even for Obama? Or done what a lot of people do--voted in the downticket races and left the presidential race blank, which would have been justifiable considering the abomination of a ticket the Republicans put up.

You're probably looking at somewhere between 65 and 70 percent Republican strength in Nebraska. Just a hunch--big ag tends to lean right, and Nebraska's definitely a big ag state.

[EC]

23. How do you know

that some that are opposing the bill are opposing because it is so watered down and would have wanted it with a public option? We can't just accept that those that oppose are opposing it because it is socialism or some other dumb Repuge bait...

[Jennicut]

67. Uh, its Nebraska of all places? Sorry if I don't think that there are many liberals there.

[SharonAnn]

24. SEnators also have to take into account the good of the entire country.

[Abq_Sarah]

33. Not really

Senators are elected to represent the interests of their state. They are the state's voice in Washington. Unfortunately, a lot of senators seem to have forgotten that.

[RobinA]

36. Don't Think So

I believe the Senate is supposed to be the more wide-thinking body, taking the good of the country as a whole more into account than the individual state. That's why they are not proportional. And if memory serves, they originally were not popularly elected.

[Abq_Sarah]

49. The reason they are not proportional and were originally appointed

IS because they represent the interests of the state. Since every state has two senators, each state has an equal voice. They were originally appointed by the state government to represent the state. This is also why the Senate has certain exclusive powers. They were granted to give the states a voice in government. Representatives "represent" the people of their districts, senators represent the state.

Do they no longer teach this in school?

[Iowa]

40. Wrong.

[Yupster]

50. That was the original idea, but

that was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Now senators pretty much represent their political parties.

[Zynx]

25. You're not supposed to represent their viewpoints, but rather their interests.

If a representative views that a bill is in the interest of his constituents though they may oppose it, it is perfectly legitimate for him to vote for it.

[12string]

39. What does the term"Elected Representative"

mean to you.It doesn't mean elected dictator.Representative means you represent the majority that elected you to office.I don't agree with your premise.This isn't a monarchy.

[Zynx]

46. That's not true.

It's a perfectly legitimate view point that we elect representatives to be agents to represent the public's interests on issue that the public does not understand. The public isn't capable of understanding a large number of issues ranging from economic regulation to defense contracts. We rely on representatives and their staffs to act in the public's interests.

Your viewpoint is not even possible to implement.

[MellowDem]

51. The thing is...

the Senate is a patently absurd and undemocratic system on its face, so whether or not Sentors vote with their state's own opinions is besides the point. Not to mention, the populace often doesn't know what's best for them, especially easily manipulated, ignorant populations.

[MBS]

62. a good description of the political reality faced by Nelson.

From a national perspective, his blue-dog-Dem approach, and his recent behavior in Senate HRC negotiations has frustrated, even infuriated, me.
On the other hand, he's clearly in a very tight spot in his own state. Seeing this story, I began to appreciate (even to sympathize with) his very real dilemma. As someone who's spent most of my life in deep-red states, or red areas of supposedly blue states, I've thought from time to time that a lot of Democratic voters in liberal bubbles such as NYC, San Francisco, and Cambridge forget, or perhaps have trouble imagining, how very conservative much of our country is: Dems have some very real political pressures from the right in the more conservative areas of the country, and often face steep political odds in elections. Unfortunately, these conservative areas seem not to have gone away with Obama's election.

Thanks for your comments.

[Tesha]

69. Our country appears conservative because Democrats haven't been expressing their ideals very well.

And Democrats haven't been able to express their ideals well
because assholes like the Bush Dog Democrats *DON'T SHARE THEM
AND WILL DO EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO NOT ALLOW THOSE IDEALS
TO BECOME LAW*.

Losing the Bush Dog Democrats would greatly help our party be
able to clearly remind people what the rest of us stand for and
why our ideas are correct and would be best for the common person.
Sure, we may lose "control" of the Congress for a while (as if
we "have" control now - Hah!), but we'll come back far stronger
once people once again clearly understand what we stand for.

Tesha

[treestar]

18. I doubt it's like that

They are against it from the right I would bet.

[roguevalley]

47. isn't he the dick that got the rest of us paying for their medicare

statewide? If so, NEbraska needs to stfu.

[MidwestTransplant]

3. If he would have shut up and sit down he woudl have been better off.

[DURHAM D]

14. Exactly. He should of just shut up and voted.

His grandstanding raised his national and state profile.

As someone who is from the midwest I know that the thing we want the most is for people who represent our state not to do anything embarrassing that the rest of the country can watch. Nelson messed his pants repeatedly on the national stage when he should have stayed under the radar.

[CrispyQ]

4. So we'll get a republican with an R behind his name, instead of republican with a D behind his name.

We'll get fucked by both of them, but at least I expect to be fucked by the R.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. You'll lose a Senator who votes with the Democrats over 72% of the time

I wouldn't expect his Republican replacement to vote with the Democrats that often. Would you?

[CrispyQ]

22. You're right.

I'm still angry about his anti-abortion amendment & how many dems, including women dems, are willing to limit poor women's access to reproductive medical care, in order to pass this travesty of a "health" bill. Incidentally, I would be pissed about abortion limitations, even if the health bill were much better.

[ieoeja]

26. Where do you get that stat? And does it show for all Senators?

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Here:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/senate/party-voters/

[bread_and_roses]

35. Not all votes are equal. Depends which are the 28% votes w/ Rs

I don't follow Nelson's record. But I am thinking, for instance, of an example - I think it was during the Lieberman-Lamont wars here, though I could be misremembering - when someone defended Liebeman with "he voted for bike paths." It's money, militarism, and civil rights that count - those are the votes that can ruin lives and for that matter the planet.

Of course, with the Ds in general voting enthusiastically for ever-bigger war budgets and wars, shoveling the wealth of the nation into the coffers of the banks, insurance, and pharma, and failing to redress the destruction of our civil rights under the evil empire, it doesn't matter much, does it?

Nothing much is going to matter until and unless we have public funding of elections in this country. Both Parties are entirely in the throttlehold of the Corporations, and nothing we do electorally is going to matter.

[PassingFair]

44. That's the same shit they said about Lieberman.

We don't need traitors in the camp.

[Oak2004]

59. The problem is which 72%

Funding futile wars? Check.
Shoveling money to corporations at the expense of working people? Check.
Dismantling civil liberties? Check.
Meddling in the affairs of other nations on behalf of wealthy patrons? Check.
Looking the other way when presented with overwhelming evidence of war crimes? Check.
Dismantling public education on behalf of corporate maleducation? Check.


There's your 72%.

And surprise, almost no one who knows that this is happening (it's hard to tell when "news" consists largely of the latest reports on the most recently dead celebrity) likes it, right, left, or center. With the exception, of course, of the politicians involved and their corporate owners.

[IndianaGreen]

75. FRAK Ben Nelson and others like him.

[dhpgetsit]

6. That is the problem with trying to represent both parties.

He loses the support of liberals and conservatives at the same time.

[TwilightGardener]

10. There are not that many liberals in Nebraska. There is no real "right vs. left"

tug of war over Nelson. It's a "far right vs center".

[paulk]

7. I don't think losing Nelson or the four or five others

like him would change things all that much.

A sixty vote majority has so far netted us nothing - at this point I would rather see the progressive/liberal wing of the party concentrate on on strengthening our position in the states where we can. The strategy of electing Democrats just because they call themselves Democrats is a failure, imho. All we end up doing is watering things down to the point where our voice isn't heard even in the party.

[Frances]

11. I used to think like you

until the Dems from the South became Repubs

That's when I learned how ignorant I was of how Congress works

Even if a representative votes with the Repubs most of the time, which Nelson doesn't, it's who he votes for the leadership that is important.

The party in power determines what laws will be voted on.

By the way, even though Alabama Dems were racist when I was growing up, they did vote for good social programs that benefitted all the people in Alabama. Senator Lister Hill co-sponsored a bill that gave me an excellent loan that paid for my college education. The Repubs are the ones who changed the loans to benefit the lenders rather than the students.

[struggle4progress]

16. bingo

[zipplewrath]

21. In the end we get the same thing

I understand your logic, but we have achieved a situation where regardless of which party is in control, we get votes on restricting the ability of the federal government to negotiate with the drug companies. And we get the same result too. HCR isn't any reform at all and I strongly suspect we would have gotten something better out of the GOP in about 5 years because the major multinationals would have tired of competing on the international market against companies that didn't have to directly fund the healthcare of their employees. Different path, ultimately the same result. Truth is, ultimately the GOP may do this as a way of "fixing" the mess that the DNC is creating.

[Frances]

30. So, you are one of those people who think there was no

difference between Gore and W.

Or between Clinton and W.

Or between Reagan and FDR.

People who think like this are the reason Reagan and the Repubs were able to do so much damage.

LBJ passed single payer medicare. The Repubs now allow the insurance companies to act as middle men and collect 14% more than the old fashioned medicare costs.

Yet you think there is no difference!!

So many Dems swallow the Fox news way of looking at things. 100% of Republicans and 20% of Dems against something, yet people like you blame the Dems and forgive the Repubs.

No wonder Repubs get so much power.

[zipplewrath]

45. Difference yes

But ultimately the outcome is the basically the same. We got NAFTA from Clinton, and DADT, and DOMA. Shall we discuss welfare "reform"? And of course there was all that progress on health care reform.

Don't be so sure about how Gore would have reacted to 9/11. Remember, Obama is doubling down in Afghanistan and Gitmo now won't be closed until 2011, not to mention that the prison in Afghanistan just grows and grows. Sure, maybe we skip Iraq, but we could be bogged down in Yemen or Somalia right now.

[paulk]

28. I'm not saying we need to lose our majority

I understand the importance of having the leadership. If we lost some of the more conservative members at this point, we would still have a majority, and still control the agenda. Not having to coddle the conservadems would allow the more liberal wing of the party a stronger voice.

I used to think like you - I put aside a lot of my more fundamental political beliefs these last several years in the hope of an overwhelming Democratic majority. That majority does us little good when a Ben Nelson or Lieberman can hold up the entire caucus.

[Frances]

31. FDR saved the country during the Great Depression

He gave us FDIC and Social Security and the CCC, which built roads and parks and other infrastructure.

But even FDR had to make compromises.

There just aren't enough progressives in the country for progressives to ever get 60 senators, although we need to elect as many as we can. But we have to be realistic and go for the best we can get in Red states. Those of us who have lived in bright red states have learned this lesson the hard way.

[paulk]

41. I'm not necessarily talking about progressives

I'm talking about liberals, who make up a significant part of the Democratic party. Compromise is one thing - but the liberal wing of the party has been pretty much completely shut out of the Obama administration. It's not even compromise with Republicans - they essentially don't matter right now - it's compromise with a minority within the Democratic Party, a minority that is winning all the battles.

[NJCher]

54. you make an important point, plus...

The Repubs are the ones who changed the loans to benefit the lenders rather than the students.


And, it should be noted, the Dems reversed this. Now the school loan programs go to the students instead of benefiting the banks.



Cher

[Blasphemer]

27. I agree... as long as they insist that they need 60 and not 50+1, it makes no difference

51 is the same as 55 is the same as 59 (I've always hated that they included Lieberman in the 60).

[damntexdem]

9. Oh darn, where's my violin?

Doesn't matter -- can't play it anyway. ;-)

[WriteDown]

13. You'd think they'd be more gracious considerin every other state is footing their bill. nt

[ixion]

19. actually, that is one of the reasons they're pissed

they don't want the money.

[old mark]

17. Well, there's another place I don't want to visit.......nt

[progressoid]

20. Sadly, we aren't going to get anyone much more liberal out of Nebraska.

[Winterblues]

32. By 2012 even the most Republican will be thankful this Bill passed.

Most are only saying what Limbaugh and Beck say without really giving it any thought. When they realize how much better off their neighbors and even themselves are their tunes will change..These are the same people that are currently DEMANDING that Medicare does not get cut, when they have spent decades hoping for just that very thing...They talk themselves into circles..

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

37. This would explain Nelson's behavior of late....

Grinding every last compromise and "gift" out of the legislation that he can -- it's not just a matter of greed. Nelson knows that he has to give himself LOTS of reasons to vote for this bill to appease the folks at home. And even after getting everything he got in the Senate bill, his constituents are still pissed.

I look for Nelson to vote against the final legislation. For starters, it appears to be what his constituents want from him.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

63. As long as he votes for cloture (if necessary)

I'm cool with him voting against the bill- although it will be interesting to see how he justifies it given the concessions we have made.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

65. The more I think about it...

The more respect I have for Ben Nelson. He's a conservative Democrat, to be sure, and so he does have misgivings about this bill. Fair enough.

But he's also a Red State Democrat, from a state that hasn't gone Democratic since LBJ.

His vote for cloture might well be an act of political suicide. Vote against it and he'll be comfortably re-elected. Now? Not so sure he'll be back.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

66. It's hard to know what to think of "Blue Dogs"

I want the Dems to have a numerical majority in Congress- to help keep the GOP out of power- but then I also don't want a bunch of Dems whom are going to make it impossible to get any good progressive legislation through- force us into a lot of unwise and unnecessary compromises. I have to deal with Evan Bayh out here in Indiana and, although he's probably as *progressive* of a Dem as we're going to see able to be elected out here for a long time and I will still (hold my nose and) vote for him, I still don't like how quick he was to publicly distance himself from President Obama when he first took office and announce how he's going to hold him accountable- even though he didn't lead any big push for accountability from Bushco. :shrug:

[depakid]

38. Rassmussen says,,,, and people jump to the tune!

What a bunch of suckers.

[robcon]

53. Nelson believes the poll: he airing ads 3 years before the election!

Beleaguered Nelson to air TV ad tonight
By DON WALTON / Lincoln Journal Star | Posted: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 12:30 am | (110) Comments

As a fresh poll measured the political cost of Sen. Ben Nelson's health reform vote, he prepared Tuesday to take his case directly to Nebraskans during Wednesday night's Holiday Bowl game.

Nelson will air a new TV ad in which he attempts to debunk opposition claims that the Senate legislation represents a government takeover, and he makes the case for health care reform.

"With all the distortions about health care reform, I want you to hear directly from me," the Democratic senator says in the ad.

Nelson, dressed in an open-necked shirt and sweater, speaks directly into the camera during the 30-second ad.

The message will be launched during the Nebraska-Arizona football game and continue to air statewide for an undisclosed number of days.

The political damage Nelson may have incurred in providing the critical 60th vote that cleared the way for Senate passage of the health care reform bill showed up Tuesday in a poll released by Rasmussen Reports.

The telephone survey of 500 Nebraskans, conducted Monday, suggested Republican Gov. Dave Heineman would defeat Nelson in a potential 2012 Senate race by a 61-30 margin.

The poll showed Nelson with a 55 percent unfavorable rating and 64 percent disapproval for Democratic health care reform legislation.

"The good news for (Nelson) is that he doesn't have to face Nebraska voters until 2012," Rasmussen Reports stated in posting results of the survey on its Web site.

Nelson would be seeking a third term should he choose to be a candidate for re-election three years from now.

Heineman is seeking re-election as governor in 2010 and would be at mid-term if he chooses to enter the Senate race in 2012.
http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/article_19bc53c8-f4e8-11de-ab34-001cc4c002e0.html

[defendandprotect]

42. If a Democratic/liberal props up to run against him, let me know -- I send $$ . . .

[w4rma]

48. He helped turn the bill into a subsidy for the insurance industry. Of course they're pissed. (nt)

[CRH]

52. probably better a republican fill his position, ...

no worse than him holding the democratic platform hostage through fear of his personal re election prospects.

[NJCher]

55. the brain drain in Nebraska

My brother lives in this God-forsaken hellhole of a state and he told me that when Nelson decided to vote with the bill, he was grateful, if only for one reason: the ads against Nelson voting for the bill would stop. My brother said the ads were run constantly.

Hmm, just wonder who has the money to keep that up?

Let's remember one thing about Nebraska and states like it: there is a brain drain there. Excluding Chicago, try to think of important intellectuals from the midwest and you will have a tough time of it. They don't have much in the way of intellectual discourse, thus it has been extraordinarily easy for the O'Reillys and the Limbaughs of the world to take over what discussion there is.

Furthermore, as the economic recession tightens its grip, the desperate turn to meth. The true depth of meth's grip in the midwest is belied by that good, wholesome "heartland" image. In truth, the Bread Basket is leading America--rotting from the core out.


Cher

[agincourt]

72. Very slender on progressive politics out here.

Limbaugh tweedle dums and meth-heads abound. The sad truth is Nelson was as progressive of a senator as this state would send to Washington. A lot of dems want him to choke but I hope he wins in 2012. They won't vote for anyone less conservative out here I don't beleive.

[No Elephants]

57. Which begs the question: Why does anyone live in Nebraska in the first place?

I am coming to the view that I'd rather have a Republican than a Blue Dog who legislates like a Republican anyway, so I have mixed feelings about this poll.

[Freddie Stubbs]

60. Nelson votes with the Democratic caucus over 72% of the time

Do you really believe that any Republican would vote with the Democratic caucus over 72% of the time?

[IndianaGreen]

76. So what! He FRAKs the working class and supports the capitalists

RIP his sorry ass!

[natrat]

61. whole friggin world will hate this turd by the time the news gets out-bu bye dems

[bemildred]

64. Good, we need lots more congresspersons in "political trouble". nt

[Jennicut]

68. Nebraskans are more conservative, hence a conservative Dem.

Would it be a loss to us as liberals? Not really, except for some Dem votes. In order to stay elected Nelson has to be DLC-like because it is a more conservative state. Also, 2012 is a long way away.

[tonysam]

73. Of course Nebraska being what it is, Democrats can't find anybody

better than the Senator from Mutual of Omaha.

Ben Nelson is a disgrace.

[IndianaGreen]

74. May his political career come to a swift end

Blue Dogs should be euthanized!

[TheFarseer]

78. funny letter in the Omaha World Herald -

The punch line was, "The only bad part of the Holiday Bowl(a 33-0 Nebraska win) was seeing Ben Nelson's commercials trying to defend his vote."