Election Lost: 82% of Obama Voters Who Switched to Brown Support a Public Option - Lets Do It

[jsamuel]

Someone here suggested I put my posts into a journal entry so that people may get better exposure to the ideas contained herein.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/20/827621/-82-of-Obama-Voters-who-Voted-for-Brown-in-MA-Support-the-Public-Option

Obama voters who voted for Brown:

82% support for Public Option
32% support for Baucus Bill


Obama voters who stayed home:

86% support for Public Option
34% support for Baucus Bill

The point to draw from this, in my opinion, is not that people voted based on Brown's votes, but because of frustration (in part) with not getting things done the way they were promised (not bringing change).

If my calculations are correct, "Obama voters who voted for Brown" represent about 10% of all votes cast in the election. More than enough to make the difference. http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/mapollresults

85% of "Obama voters who voted for Brown" are independents.
89% of "Obama voters who stayed home" are Democrats.

It is entirely possible that voters voted for Brown or stayed home to punish Democrats for not passing a Public Option.

It is not our job to defend or attack these voters, but it is our job to understand their reasoning, even if we view it as irrational. Doing so will enable us to prevent future losses and decrease voter frustrations.

I propose that in order to relieve these frustrations that we pass a Public Option or extend Medicare. Both of these have shown the ability to pass the House and Senate with a simple majority. Even Conrad is open to using Budget Reconciliation (requires 50+1 votes in the Senate) to change things that the House wants in the final bill.

Now that the Senate has 59 votes, budget reconciliation is the only way many things will get done. The only way that HCR can now get passed is if the House votes for the Senate bill without any changes. The House will not do that, according to people like Weiner, without some things getting changed via reconciliation in the Senate. The House can make a deal with the Senate to pass the HCR bill if the Senate simultaneously passes a Public Option/Medicare extension through budget reconciliation (50+1 votes) along with many of the other changes it seeks.

Some members of the House are already talking about this possibility, although I have yet to hear them mention a medicare extension or a public option.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/determined-or-delusional-house-leadership-sounds-optimistic-on-hcr.php

Two high-profile progressives--Reps. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)--said the only way they could sign on to the Senate bill is if it was accompanied immediately, or even preceded by, a separate bill, making a number of major preemptive changes to what they regard as an inferior package.

"It would have to be so quick that they happen at the same time," Weiner said. "We're in full whistling past the graveyard mode in there.... They're talking as if, like, what our deal is, what our negotiations are with the White House. Yeah, I mean if the last line is 'pigs fly out ass' or something like that.... We've gotta recognize we have an entirely different scenario tomorrow."

"You should do the other stuff first and then pass the Senate bill," Nadler told me. "I don't see how I could vote for the Senate bill," otherwise.

The members of the House should seize the opportunity to give voters what they are asking for since we would no longer need votes from Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln, or Brown for that matter. We can get 50+1 votes in the Senate for at least a Medicare expansion to 55 and maybe to 45. The senate almost agreed to this except for Lieberman alone. We could still pass the bill with budget reconciliation with 58 votes and a Medicare expansion.

In this way, we can start to cure what ails us.

[DrDan]

1. obama is not going to use reconciliation

he is going to wait until brown is seated - then start on the Senate version.

"Obama insisted today that the Senate wait for Brown to be seated before they make any changes to its version of the health care reform legislation."

[jsamuel]

2. Sigh... My ideas include passing the Senate bill

why is it that so many people refuse to read the op before posting something completely contrary to the op?

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Obama has no authority to decide whether or not to use reconciliation

He has no say when it comes to determining if Congress should wait for Brown to be seated before voting.

The Obama Administration is a separate branch of government.

This is not a dictatorship.

[DrDan]

8. no way they would move forward without his agreement

[wilt the stilt]

3. I am cutting off my nose

to spite my face. I am voting for a republican. Freakin' Morons.

[jsamuel]

4. I sympathize, but...

"It is not our job to defend or attack these voters, but it is our job to understand their reasoning, even if we view it as irrational. Doing so will enable us to prevent future losses and decrease voter frustrations."

[RainDog]

6. exactly.

I warned of this very thing.

I didn't say I supported it, but I said that it would happen- not in this particular race, but for the mid-terms.

It doesn't do any good to insult someone who is so angry. That's not what they're doing it for.

What it DOES say is that voter seems to think there is not enough difference between the two parties on the subject of health care reform - to do nothing (republican) or to get the senate bill (democrat).

when the party instills that level of apathy, you have to wonder what the party is doing wrong. the blame is not on the voter who is upset with the actual HCR bill that is in the Senate.

[mzmolly]

5. Well this should send a message.

Lets hope it does.