U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Janak Joshi
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) David Seligman
50%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Danielson
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%↓
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(D) Milat Kiros
90%
10%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(R) H. Scheppelman
(D) Alex Kelloff
70%
30%
10%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Jessica Killin
70%
30%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
30%
30%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 08, 2009 08:43 PM UTC
113 Comments
women’s health care the overall objective was achieved. A vigorous debate, a close vote and a new chance for our country.
I’m betting this won’t rogue vote won’t hurt Markey or the Democratic Party. Who knows, maybe the Democratic leadership knew they had the votes and encouraged her to vote no to screw with the anticipated Republican ads in 2010. This might be a setup in power politics. If it is and the Democratic leadership is finally learning how to counter extremist lies with raw power moves then Repubs. better watch out.
If her vote had been needed, she would have backed her leaders.
and when the Catholic’s and their prolife partners find out she voted to support abortions with their taxes they’ll be lining up to volunteer.
by learning what the amendment in question really does. It is not merely prohibiting federal funds for providing certain medical procedures to women. Funny, no one is demanding that boner pills not be funded by ‘taxpayer’ money…
when those catholics findout about this they’ll go batshit crazy. Lump on top of that the cap and tax and card check opponents and you have yourself massive natural Gardner grouping ++ a 527 waiting to happen.
you ignore them.
1. Markey co-sponsored CARD CHECK
2. Markey voted for CAP and TRADE
3. Markey voted FOR including federal abortion tax dollars in the Pelosi-Obama Healthcare Bill (H3962)
of the US House of Representatives?
is what Republicans call anything they don’t like.
I’m surprised we don’t hear about Pelosi-Obama Nuggets Losses.
damn Republicans
In case you missed the last election, the abortion obsessed extremists lost their precious personhood initiative 77%-23%.
The scary Catholics never voted for Markey in 2008 so she never lost their vote. The Catholic vote is already maxed out for Republicans. You also conveniently forget that there are a lot of women in CD-4 who don’t want government to come between them and their doctor when it comes to health care. My guess is she is going to retain her base because she refuses to let government ration health care for woman.
Really weak argument lizardboy. Oh and what a hypocrite to say that rationing is only bad for men who get government funded prick pills.
Particularly your last paragraph:
Amen, amen.
Markey voted no, but she didn’t harm the discussion or the effort to pass reform in any other way. Conversely, Jared Polis seriously damaged the discussions, but ended up voting yes. Which is more preferable?
🙂
“Markey did everything she could to help pass the bill but vote for it.”
With help like that, who needs enemies?
–The teacher did everything he could to educate Rita except teach her to read.
–The EMT did everything he could to save Filbert except give him CPR.
–The firefighters did everything they could to save Jasper’s house except spray water on the fire.
–The novelist did everything he could to write a best-seller except write one.
To all of the aforementioned, a Great Big Thanks and assurances that you will be kept in office/job/our esteem.
Remember when health care almost passed the House? Those were good times.
I don’t see too many Astroturfers and the like jumping on the Markey bandwagon. She should have voted yes and had the courage of her convictions.
Markey is running as a fiscal conservative, and her complaints about the HCR bill run along those lines.
If she spins it right to her constituency, she could even say “I would rather have had the Medicare +5% formula than negotiated rates, because it would have cost taxpayers less money.” That might redeem her in front of the base. She also voted No on the Stupak amendment, which might blunt the impact.
Markey is playing to a very specific electorate, and I think that electorate will be very happy with the fiscal conservative version of their Representative. She needs the independents, and in CO-04 I think those independents are overwhelmingly fiscal conservatives.
And also agree it’s quite possible that she was “allowed” to vote the way she did because her vote wasn’t needed. As it was, with all that talk right up to the last minute that Pelosi couldn’t get the 218, getting that and a couple to spare looks pretty good. Markey is no fool.
Those Tea Party Independents and moderate R’s in CO-02 will so overlook her complete backing of the $787 billion bailout.
She have better have gotten some serious pork for CO-02 with her No votes.
What an incredible leak this is! Markey is going to primary Polis!!
Libertad, you’re so well-connected and in the know!
All she’s accomplished is base demoralization. Eventually the lesson of Creigh Deeds in Virginia will sink in: fink out your most reliable supporters, and a close election becomes impossible.
That’s how often Markey votes with her party. She is neither Deeds nor is she trying to cater to “the baggers” with this vote. She listens to her district, and she tries to vote accordingly.
Considering that the last time Democrats held this seat before Markey was 1973, I’ll take 94% and a no vote on health care when we didn’t need her.
Honest question for you Stagarite: do you think that a liberal Democrat who always voted the party line, and didn’t “fink” on liberals in CD-4, could win the seat?
…that this vote was of equal value with the others. I doubt that even you believe that one.
This vote was less important, because it was unnecessary for passage. Thanks for making redstates’ point.
A “yes” vote to pass the signature social program of Obama’s presidency was “less important”? Really? Do you actually believe your own rhetoric?
It passed without her, but I agree that this vote was more important than others.
But you didn’t answer my question, even though it’s central to the whole conversation.
Hence, I don’t think any answer is necessary. I notice that you’ve not owned your claim that Markey’s vote on the the health bill was on a par with her other votes, so I assume you’ve conceded that point to me.
Also, if no answer indicates a concession, haven’t you already conceded by not answer the alleged non-question? It had a question mark and everything.
Read more carefully. I didn’t provide an answer to the fallacious complex question, and I’m waiting for redstate to fix the flawed 94% argument that motivated it in the first place. If you want to be captious, at least think through the arguments before responding–unless you intent is merely to chill debate by putting up flack.
You:
You again:
Your best argument is, I guess, that you asked first? Mature. Keep it up.
Thanks for recognizing that the 94% argument has problems.
Yes. The most powerful political force in the world is principle, voters are naturally attracted to candidates who are comfortable in their own skin, and loyalty translates into enthusiastic support. When we obsess about the “game” aspect of politics and “figuring the angles” we forget why we actually do this stuff. Do I think Markey helped herself win reelection? No. She’s defined herself as a responder and an angler. People get turned off by that kind of thing.
One other thing. I think it’s wrong to think of unaffiliated voters as “independents,” i.e., as having some kind of unique, freestanding ideology. (It’s not like they wake up one morning with a passionate love for all moderate and bipartisan: “By gum I love vanilla ice cream and unfrosted doughnuts!”) Rather I suspect they’re a pretty diverse group with various reasons for not affiliating with a major party. However, they may be more open to a candidate who’s comfortable in his or her skin. So Markey probably cooked her goose with the unaffiliateds too.
Thanks for answering my question. I disagree, and I’ll refer you back to electoral history of CD-4 for that (1973-2009 it was held by the GOP) but I appreciate this attempt to engage in a real discussion.
The only way this vote could hurt Betsy Markey in CD-4 would be if liberal interest groups attacked her for voting no. Her opponent in this race is Corey Gardner, who despite being Dem-Curious at one point is now a dead red Ft. Morgan Republican. Even if your premise that Markey’s vote was self-serving or strategic is true, Gardner isn’t going to hit her on this. The NRCC isn’t going to hit her on this. Any unaffiliated voters who don’t vote for Markey are never going to vote for Gardner, so it’s not costing her anything except for support of people outside of CD-4–support she doesn’t need.
I meant to say “…any unaffiliated voters to whom this issue is critical enough not to vote for Markey are never going to vote for Gardner.”
The risk Markey is taking is that they’ll still be ready to come out for her. Ask Creigh Deeds how that worked out for him. To use a sports analogy, the teabaggers made Markey choke; that’s what the GOP wants to hang around her neck. So far,it’s worked. She’s demoralized the Ds and made the Us less likely to view her in a positive light. This is what you get with yuppy Dems who are all strategy and no heart.
You said:
I replied:
I’m sorry if that was unclear, but I was agreeing, in so many words, that certain votes on certain legislation are more important than other votes. I thought I was being fairly clear on that. Health care, ARRA (Markey voted yes on that BTW) EFCA (Markey is a co-sponsor) and energy are all legislation I feel strongly about. She voted my way on that 75% of the time. On the other 25%, the bill passed without her.
But whether you want to answer it or not, I was asking an honest question, and even though it was in the same comment as the 94% statement, I didn’t think it really had any relevance to that number:
It wasn’t a trap, I was just asking because you and JO seem to be implying that a Democrat who fits more into your idea of what a CD-4 Democrat would want should run a primary campaign against Markey. I was merely pointing out that, even on the slim chance such a Democrat won the primary, they couldn’t possibly win CD-4.
I think I’ve got you covered in an earlier post. My big worry with a candidate like Markey is that she’s falling into a GOP trap by responding to the issue rather than being comfortable in her own skin. Thing is, most people don’t understand the issues and vote their emotions. Ultimately what will clinch the deal is how the candidate makes them feel. E.g., Ronald Reagan’s policies were always far less popular than Ronald Reagan, but he was comfortable in his skin and consistent in what he stood for. Markey has now demonstrated disloyalty to her friends. Those who want to vote against her will still vote against her. Those who were most likely to vote for her will likely feel burned, and the undecideds now will view her as sketchy and experience a twinge of revulsion because of that. Authenticity trumps gamesmanship every time. Markey now appears inauthentic, and unless she fixes that, she’s a gonner. I suspect the GOP knows this and is celebrating her “no” vote on healthcare more for political than or policy reasons.
Markey’s going to have lots of company voting no in the Senate (if it makes it to a floor vote).
Last week Mr. Gardner’s campaign sent out a blast email claiming Rep. Markey favored the bill and that she was doing great hatm to the people of the 4th CD. Now he doesn’t have any substantial issues to contrast hmself with Congresswoman Markey.
Markey is a lefty in a conservative district. She’s not fiscally conservative.
“My opponent is a coward and does the politically expedient thing. She would have voted FOR this bill in a hearbeat if she hadn’t already been assured by NANCY PELOSI HERSELF that her vote wasn’t needed.”
At least that’ll be the line.
She’s targeted by the RNC, and her district rivals El Paso County in right wing constituents.
I’m glad that her vote was not required for passage.
I congratulate the House Democrats. They have achieved a historic victory.
This bill is a farce, and independents are very angry. Good luck in 2010.
went to Dems. Indies, along with many priogressive Ds, may not be all that thrilled with Ds right now but they aren’t exactly rushing to support the far right loons. Maybe 2010 will look like 2009 as far as congressional elections go. Especially if the Palin/Limbaugh axis has its way in candidate selection. Think about that, AS.
wasn’t needed, and Pelosi let her vote “no” just to help her protect the seat, then Markey’s nothing but a spineless wind sock.
If Markey’s running as a “fiscal conservative”, as Phoenix Rising suggests, she’ll have a hell of a time defending her Cap and Trade vote.
Dems got it passed. Markey didn’t do any harm. Every Dem, including Markey, helps us retain majority status. Take it all in all, it’s a success. Agree with Ray on all counts.
Because they take politics into account. Those that don’t – lose.
And there is a lot of truth in her statement. The bill did a good job of addresses the giant problem of coverage. It didn’t do much for the issue of cost containment – and that is also a giant problem.
From what I can tell, neither the Senate bill nor the House bill does much to control the drivers of health-care costs. But as Dick Lamm has preached for decades, the issue of costs in health-care treatment is the single biggest factor in this whole problem. It will have to be dealt with sooner or later.
It takes from the middle class and gives to Democrat politicians.
it wouldn’t do Democratic politicians much good. They’d all be voted out.
If it provides for portability and assurance of no pre-existing condition exclusion, those are two GIANT reforms as far as this middle class voter is concerned: reforms that we never saw when the GOP held all the power.
Don’t expect it from this bill. Unless you always work for small companies who can participate in the Exchange, don’t expect portable health insurance from this bill.
Does anyone know if the new commissioner who oversees this plan still has the power to expand eligibility in the Exchange to larger companies after a few years? That would help…
Only R to vote with Dems on healthcare and first of Vietnamese heritage elected to congress. He’s in a position not so unlike Markey’s (New Orleans area, not GOP stronghold) but this isn’t the first time he’s shown himself to be no lock step R and therefore probably pretty good at representing his constituents:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs…
The taxes generated by this bill, its cost shifting support and mandates are the levers the Democrats need to redirect your cash to his voters.
Cao (Gow) is also catholic and the bishops gave him the pass if that abortion restriction amendment passed.
Those freaking catholic bastards … they believe healthcare and life are rights, yet they allow abortion to stand and free pass this turd.
Wanna make $s? If healthcare getst o a conference committee you must open an abortion clinic in poor areas. If Markey & DeJet strip the catholics’ abortion amendment out at conference committee you’ll be able to count on some serious government paid on-demand abortion business.
of not responding to to your utter nonsense? Naaah…
That was a dumb post by you. “You must open an abortion clinic in poor areas.” Suuuure. And a death panel, too, right?
Cao was very recently called “the future of the Republican party” by none other than John Boehner. Are you saying you (gasp) disagree with Orange Man on something?
if Markey were a Republican, many on the Left would say her “NO” vote was a vote for corporate interests, insurance lobbyists, and the rich.
But, since it was just a vote for political convenience, she’s excused.
she would have done exactly what Boehner told her to do, no questions asked. Cao will get crucified by the national party.
Deviations from party orthodoxy are the only things that are not OKIYAR.
they let their few moderates in Dem leaning districts vote against them as long as they had plenty of votes to spare. In the Senate they let the Snowes and Collins go rogue as long as they didn’t join a Dem filibuster to block cloture and as long as they had the votes. Don’t think they’ll crucify Cao. He’s a great pick up for them.
will I suspect go Democratic in 2010, despite Cao’s relatively liberal voting record. He won only because he was running against William Jefferson. Against a Democrat with a decent reputation, I don’t think he’d win.
Michelle Malkin is already trashing him. The others will follow.
I think they are going to run him right out of the Party.
The purity litmus test that one must pass to remain a Republican these days…then again, the purity test some Democrats in this thread are espousing rivals that of the Republican Party. And I guarantee every single one of these resident geniuses that they will reap the same results as the Republicans.
If cutting off their noses to spite their faces is the goal, then they can definitely claim “mission accomplished.”
We’ll do everything we can to keep Markey in office except vote for her.
Guaranteed. Vote back if not satisfied. This line of thinking sponsored by Laff-a-Minute, 123 KnowItAll Drive, Heaven-Sent, Colorado. Please allow two years for refunds.
I thought I was responding to Blue Cat. But instead, I get The Bitter Genius.
As sxp says, Cao may lose to a Dem but I’m not sure the Rs would run him out, knowing they probably have no chance in his district with anybody but him in 2010. They do like to have a handful of other-than-white men to point to. See Senate, Snowe and Collins.
Also instructive to remember that Bush policy post-Katrina cleansed many Dems who have never returned and even the New Orleans area isn’t quite as Dem heavy as it was before. No doubt most new development will be geared toward the affluent, not toward reconstituting places like Ward 9.
has already openly threatened Snowe over her position on health care. I hate to disagree with you but they are intent on driving out anyone and everyone that doesn’t meet their ideology and their purity tests on votes.
several rogue votes by following the rule of never actually making a difference in anything her leadership wanted badly. She would certainly not be allowed to break a GOP filibuster(are you listening Harry?). House R leadership doesn’t need to torch Cao. R House members who so desire can still demonize him to please their constituents. We’ll see.
That’s not really the issue with the Republican Party these days though, is it? Need has nothing to do with it. A puritanical ideology seems to be the overriding consideration within the Party faithful these days.
Personally, I like Snowe. She’s the kind of Republican that I respect. I don’t agree with some of her ideology and positions but I sure as hell respect her.
who knows how silly they’ll get? Can’t argue with you there.
As Vietnamese Americans I know tend to vote R (small gov, fiscal conservative) and the Rs are running out of friendly demos, they might want to hang on to the first Vietnamese-American member of congress ever. But that would make sense so….
Well said.
to be smart. If given a choice between passing legislation and increasing the probability of losing a seat, or passing the same legislation and increasing the probability of retaining that same seat, I would be very disappointed if the House Democrats, as an organized political party, chose the former instead of the latter.
I don’t know what your agenda is, Hiking: You may be sincere but lacking a cogent analysis, or you may be insincere and trying to foment discord. Either way, one thing is certain: You’re promoting folly, when wisdom works better.
And, Steve, you are just no fun lately. Your recent crisp, concise comments deprive us all of the pleasure of teasing you!
Given the choice between a consistent Republican and a meretricious Democrat, the district will choose the Republican. As in Virginia, the base will stay home, and independents who “vote for the person, not the party” will go with the candidate who appears to have a consistent set of principles–regardless of what those principles happen to be. Markey is a protege of Kiss Ass Ken Salazar, whose own vacillating earned him so much contempt in the party that he had to vacate his Senate seat for a minor cabinet position. You’d think Markey would have been smart enough not to throw away her seat trying to placate unappeasable teabaggers.
His tack to the right only sealed his fate, it didn’t forge it. Deeds lost because he was a lousy campaigner first, and a twist-in-the-wind candidate second.
I would suggest not taking the various just-past races any more seriously than they merit.
…before writing my 12:12:24 below, I could have saved time simply by referring back to it. My point exactly in a lot fewer words. NO evidence available that a candidate can succeed by running as a Republican on the Democratic ticket, or that Markey did so in 2008. Comparing the House and White House figures for the district a year ago, the ’08 outcome was a rejection of Musgrave. The 49%-50% Obama-McCain close call might…might…suggest a district that’s rather more competitive–dare we say in flux?– than some experts on this site might think.
I also agree with Phoenix Rising on the outcome in VA. Indeed, VA might well be a foretaste of CD4 in ’10, far more so than NY CD23!
She learned the wrong lessons from Salazar’s nosediving single term in the Senate, and appears ready to apply them in her own race. By voting against her president and party, Markey sent her base a clear and unmistakable message: stay home.
No doubt she thinks she can do without her most dedicated supporters given the thousands of teabaggers who will flock to her campaign attracted like moths to a flame by her carefully-modulated message of nuance, centrism, moderation, and bipartisanship.
If Markey has “done everything to support this bill except vote for it,” then her vote against it is, and will be attacked as, pure political expediency.
I suppose those better versed in polls and the like will have done the careful political analysis to determine whether Markey stands to gain more votes from voting against the bill than the support she lost by not voting against it. That may be… but the Political Best and Brightest sometimes mis-read the public’s temperature.
And isn’t it somewhat jaded and cynical to view such cold-blooded political calculation as the same as being “smart”?
It’s possible that this was a miscalculation. I take no stand on that. My comments start with the two premises that 1) Pelosi and Markey knew that Markey’s vote wouldn’t be needed for passage, and 2) Markey’s “nay” vote improved her chances of re-election. Either or both of those may be untrue: I suspect that they’re both true, though I am far from certain of either of them.
Now, assuming for the sake of argument that they’re both true, then, no, I don’t agree that it’s “jaded and cynical to view such cold-blooded political calculation as the same as being ‘smart.'”
I am probably less cold-blooded and calculating than almost anyone who blogs here regularly, criticized constantly for saying what I think rather than saying what others believe is necessary to win an election. But I have always believed that a body such as Congress is at its best when it is more than the sum of its parts, and that a political party is more effective when it exhibits some degree of party discipline (without stifling the ability of each member effectively to contribute their individual genius to that organization).
If you run for Congress as a Democrat, and feel intellectually and emotionally substantially aligned with the general set of values and goals that are the raison d’etre of that party, then it makes sense, on the basis of a passionate commitment to sincerely held values and goals, to vote in ways that best further those values and goals.
The assumption lacing every argument to the contrary here is that congresspeople have a moral obligation to act as though their individual vote is made in a vacuum, and should be understood and exercised as an integrated component of a collective process. I disagree.
Now, if a member of Congress has a difference with the party that is a matter of conscience, either because of deeply held personal beliefs, or because of their sense of how best to represent their constituents, and that member believes that their difference of conscience would be given most effective and meaningful expression by voting in a way that is not approved by the party leadership, then, yes, in that case the congressperson should break ranks. But that is pretty much the only time when they should break ranks.
In all other circumstances, their individual contribution should come in the processes that occur before it comes to a vote on the floor, trying to affect the final outcome organizationally and interactively rather than individualistically.
There’s nothing cold and jaded and cynical about doing your very best to improve the human condition, whether that means risking your seat in order to cast a crucial vote on an issue important enough to warrant such a risk to the party’s continued influence, or doing the exact opposite when an empty gesture is on the balance against continued ability to positively affect public policy.
It’s not either-or, as so many are trying to depict it: It’s not either you’re a political coward who will do anything to get re-elected, or you always vote exactly what you believe regardless of the consequences. The ideal, as rarely achieved as it may be, is no compromise at all: Combine absolute integrity in your commitment to your political values and goals for the direction of public policy with the most intelligent and pragmatic approach to furthering those values and goals.
“… and should not be understood and exercised as an integrated component of a collective process.”
She wouldn’t be representing that particular district.
She’s not as ideologically “pure” as, say, Marilyn “Manson” Musgrave.
They’d have found a different candidate.
All the PUMAs like you would have voted against her.
Both of them.
Is that right? Except in the strained opinions of erstwhile Democrats on this site spending The Day After falling over themselves to excuse her behavior. Only argument we haven’t quite heard yet is: “Yeah, she shoulda voted no, and I’m glad she did, ’cause otherwise she would have helped the Republicans, see, whereas by voting no, along with all but one Republican, she helped the Democrats. See?”
IF being elected from the 4th as the nominal Democrat is difficult, is it therefore clever to alienate “hard core” Democrats who very well might end up warming their hands on 2010? Shrewd! “Line up Democratic support by voting with the Republicans. Yesiree!”
Her “in the end it was the cost” rationale is an example of one of those arguments that is so feeble as to simply serve to underscore just how indefensible her position is as a Democrat.
Easy mistake when you’re incapable of thinking outside your own PUMA box.
But keep the heat on. Maybe you’ll get another Musgrave so that you can bitch and be happy.
Is that what you mean by “both of them [us]”?
I don’t think so. I’m one of the Dems who was very happy to see the bill pass (even though I most certainly do not like the anti-reproductive choice amendment).
At the same time, I want the Dems to maintain a majority in ’11. Nancy Pelosi saw that once she hit 218, she was able to give a pass to those Dems from Red Districts (e.g., Markey, Walt Minnick, Jim Mattheson, Harry Teague) who needed to vote against the bill.
Perhaps if Denny Hastert and Tom Delay hadn’t been so gung-ho about cracking the whip and had occasionally allowed the handful of RINOs that inhabited the House in the early part of the decade to deviate from the Party Line, they might still hold some of those seats.
She made her point about the cost containment with this vote (just like Jared Polis made his source of funding point earlier with his committee ‘no’ vote).
Markey indicated she liked much of the bill, implying to me that when the final bill makes it out of committee, she’ll be there to pass it when the real crunch arrives, just like Jared will.
Question: has anybody correlated the Stupak voters vs. the ones that wound up voting against the bill anyway? Is it strong enough to say strip the amendment out of the conference bill, ’cause we won’t get those blue dog votes anyway?
The question is – how many Dem votes can we get back from the “it’s safe to vote ‘No’, we’ve got the majority” crowd, and how many votes do we lose if we ditch the Stupak amendment in conference?
No-one’s said how many of the pro-Stupak votes would have been against the HCR package if Stupak hadn’t made it. I believe Stupak himself said it probably wasn’t a deal-breaker (just as it wasn’t for most Progressives), but then countered his own statement. The fact is, the Capp amendment included in the main HCR bill contained language equal to that of the Hyde amendment; Stupak’s amendment was just a power play to try and make things stricter than the status quo.
My guess: if Pelosi puts progressive negotiators on the conference committee as she promised, and the Senate does likewise (that’s going to be a mixed bag IMHO), the provision will come out and I think we still have a bare majority willing to pass the conference bill.
If you get elected to the State House will you vote like a Republican so you can keep your seat?
It seems like you think that’s the best way for your Party to govern.
Steve Harvey won’t get elected dogcatcher.
but it would be interesting to hear Mr. Harvey justify that position to voters.
BTW, is there any place that actually elects dog catchers?
n/t
The blow to my campaign of not being able to include “Ralphie” and “HikingTheAppalachian Trail” on my list of endorsements is devastating, but I’ll muddle along as best I can….
The best I can, in concert with others, to advance policies that best serve the interests of my constituents and the people of Colorado, now and in the future.
If that means voting on an issue in a way that ensures that I’d lose my seat in the next election, then, with little regret, that’s what I’d do. If it means voting in a way that ensures that I keep my seat when my vote is not needed to pass a bill I believe in, then, with considerable discomfort, I would do that as well.
In fact, as some have difficulty understanding, the goal is most effectively to advance ideas and policies that serve our collective interests, neither to win and hold seats (which is merely a means to that end), nor to prove that you can commit political suicide when nothing is gained by doing so, in a gesture ultimately destructive to the goals you supposedly are falling on your sword in defense of.
Although I prefer the way Steve Harvey phrased his comment, it seems this is a common intention of people running for office.
Can someone tell me what happens when the person gets elected? Why does it so quickly turn into keeping score between the sides — which side won and which side lost, and voting as a means of improving the re-election odds — instead of what’s best for the state or country as a whole?
What is it, do you think, that’s “best for the state or country as a whole”?
Seems obvious: what’s best for the state or country as a whole is to have the incumbents in office indefinitely.
If that means voting against the health care reform bill, on grounds that this cost is unacceptable, unlike the cost of, say, crop subsidies for farmers in My District, then Nay it is. If that means voting for the health care reform bill to avoid being cast as a caucus turncoat, then yea! Yea for addressing health care, yea for the incumbent.
before Markey, a Democrat hadn’t held that seat in nearly four decades?
But I guess that if you run a “better” Democrat as a primary opponent who siphons off enough of the vote to ensure that Markey loses, then i9t’s a “victory” right?
Nice to see you’re taking a page from the GOP playbook. That worked really for them in NY-23.
to demand purity and create enough NY-23s to counter the effect of lower turn out in important Dem demographics through 2010 while we let our Markey’s be electable Markey’s. Anyone think we’d have been better off with MM? Come on. Markey votes with the rest of the Dems in our congressional delegation a lot more often than any R would. She also does not represent a predominantly Dem, much less progressive, constituency. We all know what we would get running a DeGette style Dem in CD-4, don’t we?
Corey Gardner.
I’m all for holding people accountable to their base voters, but let’s make a couple of things clear.
1. The average registered Democrat in CD4 is not the average Democratic voter in CD1 or 2. Sure there are fire breathing liberals in CD4, but it is not the average registered Democrat.
2. You can’t win the CD4 without support from the independents-in order to do so you have to occasionally buck your party to do so.
3. There are 2 good reasons to buck your party: you principally disagree or you strategically are reflectively representing your district. Markey was doing both, she is an emerging deficit hawk (Conservatives not allowed to comment after they pissed away the Clinton surpluses) and she wanted to reflect her districts growing discomfort with spending. Markey had no problem with the public option element of the plan.
4. I am not saying never primary: In fact there are legislators I would advise primarying, but my criteria for that has to do with 1. not representing their district AND 2. not holding core Democratic values–to warrant a primary you must be failing at both (or corrupt–I always advocate primaries against corrupt politicians even if they vote my way 100% of the time).
BTW my opinion of Pelosi keeps climbing. She counts her votes, twists the safe arms and allows her swings to chart their own path as long as she gets what she wants.
1. Health care is a serious social problem, all the more so when it is linked to employment at a time of rising unemployment.
2. Reforming health care was a promise of Democrats in 2008 and 2009. When effected, it will be a strong campaign issue in 2010.
3. The bill that passed the House, barely, was already seriously watered-down to meet the objections of Blue Dogs–i.e., defensible in right-leaning districts.
4. Markey had two choices: act in concert with the Republicans and vote against the bill; OR, act in concert with Democrats by voting for it, and spend the next year making the case to her constituents. She chose #1, thereby ruling out #2. OTOH, the bill passed and will (maybe) be used by Republicans to beat up on Democrats, no matter how they voted, as in “Gotta have a Republican majority in order to kick out Pelosi.”
5. Markey’s defenders on this threat argue, in effect, that CD4 is a die-hard Republican district incapable of change. Maybe so. But I’d argue that if that is the case, with Musgrave out of the way–and she was an extraordinarily unattractive candidate for her own set of extremist reasons–die-hard Republicans aren’t going to vote for a Democrat if there’s an acceptable Republican on the ballot. Voting against the health care bill isn’t going to turn Markey into a Republican, nor will it persuade voters to cross party lines since, after all, if they had a Republican in office he/she would have voted against health care reform also, as well as against Cap ‘n’ Trade and every other damn thing. And this isn’t the fringe of the Republican party; it’s the mainstream philosophy: Make Obama fail by opposing everything.
6. CD4 is a good example, maybe, of Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas (indeed, CD4 looks a lot like Kansas Continued). Democrats’ objective ought to be to persuade the good people of the High Plains that their best interests are served by the platform of the Democratic Party. Keep making the case, over and over and over and over. With “social issues,” which I take to have been a strong suit, as it were, for Musgrave. seemingly on the wane–especially when the economy still in the tank for most people–an intelligent, articulate incumbent has a fighting chance to do that. Markey gave up that opportunity; she can hardly defend medical insurance reform she voted against, now can she? Nor can she argue that she makes “independent” decisions if her defenders herein are right in arguing that Well, she would have voted for the bill if Pelosi hadn’t given her a pass, so all Dems should also give her a pass and anyone who doesn’t is acting like a Republican Purist. If I were a Republican reading this site, I’d pounce on that (unsubstantiated and inferred) allegation like a tall dog!
7. And finally, comparisons between this discussion and NY CD23 are entirely specious bordering on ridiculous. No inclination to spend time going into the details, but IF there were a parallel, then Markey stands a very good chance of being reelected IF there were an ultra-conservative version of the Republicans east of Ft. Collins, etc. etc. Come back one year from now and let’s see who wins the regular election in NY23. Meantime, let’s consider the VA gov. race, where the Democrat chose a faux Republican stance, arm’s length from Obama, and…
Bottom line: Consensus among the sophisticated analysts herein–the only ones with an intelligent opinion worth considering, as they will be the first to tell you–is: the way to defeat a Republican in a traditional Republican district is to run as a sorta-, quasi- Republican, but on the Democratic ticket. (Lack of cited precedents noted.) Maybe CD4 is rock-rib, unchangeable, unchanging Republican forevermore, maybe not. If that is the case, without a Musgrave nutjob on the other ballot, Markey will have a tough battle; her vote against health care reform [Defenders: yeah, but she voted with the Democrats most of the time) ain’t gonna help her, especially insofar as it cools the ardor of true-blue Dems and robs her of one of the potentially most potent arguments as the truth emerges from the Republican cloud of misrepresentation over the next year: “I voted to make health care insurance available to all.” Only she didn’t.
JO, talk about a specious argument. You seem to be equating Markey with CD6’s Coffman. If you think 94% with the Dems is bad, try comparing it to Coffman’s record of voting with the Dems (good luck with that).
We’re talking literally hundreds of important issues over the next several years that will help not just her district, but the state and the country.
Funny thing is, I really do believe overall, people do get the represention they deserve, for good or ill. If they turn her out of office, it’ll be because she didn’t do a good job for them, not you or me.
Compromise isn’t easy, but you should try it sometime.
…with the Democrats for which Markey might take heat, I got ONE example: cap and trade.
Batter achieves a .394 season average. Then, with the Series tied 3-3, bottom of the ninth, 2 out, game tied, runner on third, he watches three strikes go past without a swing. Furious at the third called strike, batter swings bat the umpire. Can he be ejected from the game that is now over in a season that is over? What argument will ensue? But, but, he batted .394 for the season, and in April-June it was over .450!!!
As for Coffman. Huh? I’m talking about ONE vote by a nominal DEMOCRAT on The Big Issue of 2009. Vote cast; clicks were already on standard time and won’t be reset. I have no expectations, none whatsoever, of or for the representative from Tancredoland. If I want to discuss that or compare the two, I suppose I’ll figure out how to type those l-e-t-t-e-r-s or else ask you to do it for me. Thanks in advance. In the meantime, I take note that in response to one line of reasoning, you introduced a rather different subject.
The “she with us on everything else” argument fails because it puts procedural votes, bills to name post offices, and other routine legislative work on a par with major social legislation upon which the party and president have staked much of their prestige. This was Betsy Markey’s Profiles in Courage moment. She blew it.
to do anything including jamming phone lines to political parties to hold onto power.
So now if the other team plays just as tough then it is not OK.
Isn’t that being a whiner and a baby who can dish it out but can’t take it when you are getting hammered by a tougher and better organized adversary.
Musgrave was the original teabagger and her hysterical obsession with social issues like gay marriage cost Republicans the seat last year. Looks like a familiar pattern all over the country.