When the House voted to pass the health care bill, cable news shows were filled with pundits talking about how many Democrats voted against the legislation to avoid taking a hit in their districts.
But the first poll that I’ve seen which shows a member of Congress losing support at home actually comes as bad news for Rep. Mike Castle — a Delaware Republican who voted against the bill.
A new survey from Susquehanna Polling & Research shows Beau Biden — Delaware’s attorney general and the son of the vice president — beating Castle by five points in a match up for the US Senate. When the same firm polled the race this spring, Castle was up 21 points.
Why is Biden surging? As Dave Weigel points out:

He’s grabbed the lead in vote-rich New Castle County, built up a 41-point lead among Democratic voters, and moved to only 5 points behind Castle among independents. According to the pollster, the shift “may be a result of negative publicity [Castle] received in the state after casting a ‘no’ vote for President Obama’s health care reform bill in the U.S. Congress.” Castle, who has thrived as a moderate Republican in an increasingly Democratic state, has been casting more partisan votes–against the stimulus package, for the Stupak amendment–that have been well-reported in Delaware.

As we noted in a staff post earlier, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that there’s nothing to be gained from voting against health care reform. I think we can safely add this latest bit of data to the top of the stack.

All good Dems have gotta love this CNN headline, especially considering the author of the article: “Republicans heading for a spectacular bloodbath in Florida.” If you had to pick just one state for Republican wingnuts to drink the political Kool-aid en masse, it would be the Sunshine State, and according to the author, former Bush speechwriter David Frum, they are obliging with gusto:

The Republican fratricide in the November 3 special election in upstate New York may prove just an opening round of an even more spectacular bloodbath in Florida in 2010…In New York, Republican feuding lost the party a seat in the House of Representatives. At stake in Florida is not only a senatorship — but very possibly Republican hopes for 2012 as well.

Almost too good to be true, from a Democratic point of view. Frum speaks of the Senate race between moderate Republican Gov. Charlie Crist and former Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio, who is the darling du jour of GOP wingnuts.
Even Republicans are embracing the political suicide metaphors in describing the FL Senate race. As Kate Zernike reports in the Sunday New York Times,

“Florida is a hill to die on for conservatives,” said Erick Erickson, editor of the conservative blog RedState.com, which leads a daily drumbeat against Mr. Crist. “This is the clearest example we have of these two competing concepts.”

Wingnuts are still livid, it seems, because Crist, a moderate on several issues, like cap and trade to check global warming and restoring voting rights to ex-felons, not only endorsed the Obama stimulus, but campaigned for it as well. Even conservative luminaries, like George Will who should know better have climbed on the Rubio bandwagon. Frum points out that every GOP Governor eventually accepted stimulus aide, despite the grumbling. The funds were urgently-needed in FL, as Frum explains:

The final Obama plan granted Florida more than $15 billion over three years. That money averted radical cuts to schools and Medicaid. It saved the state from furloughing employees and raising taxes even higher. It has paid for emergency employment on roads and water projects. It has extended unemployment benefits for 700,000 Floridians and put an extra $25 per week in their relief packets.

While most sane Floridians are grateful for the much-needed aid, Rubio has instead attacked Crist for accepting the funds as a “terrible threat to a fragile economy.” As a result, Frum notes, Rubio “trails Crist badly in all demographic categories. Rubio even trails Crist by 10 points among Hispanics, despite his Cuban ancestry and fluent Spanish.”
Frum is very worried about his party, and asks a good question, “Are vague bromides about big government anything like an adequate response to the worst economic crisis experienced by any American under age 80?…If all we conservatives have to offer is oppositionism, then opposition is the job we’ll be assigned to fill.”
If Frum is correct about the fallout of the Crist-Rubio fight, Florida Dems may soon be drinking a toast of their own — no, not Kool-aid, but champagne.

Chris Good’s post “Does Voting For Health Reform Hurt Conservative Dems? Democratic Polling Says No” at the ‘Politics’ blog of The Atlantic leads the ‘must-read’ list for political operatives and activists. Good explains:

39 Democrats voted against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) health care reform package…These lawmakers represent conservative districts–31 of 39 of which backed McCain in 2008–and the Democratic health care reform (whatever that may be, exactly) is opposed, on average, by most Americans–even though some reputable polls have shown strong, some would say overwhelming, support for the public option.
It stands to reason that, in the most conservative districts held by Democrats, voters are at least as cool on reform.
Democratic polling, however, says this isn’t the case, and, while partisan-commissioned polling should always be looked at with a suspect eye, that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth looking at.

Good rolls out the data for the swing districts held by Dems, “the polling the left has done–and it’s really all we have to go on” First, from Good’s overview of GQR/DCorps polling of LVs:

A poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlian Rosner for Democratic polling, research, and strategy firm Democracy Corps October 6-11, meanwhile, shows voters in the 20 most vulnerable Democratic seats think Republicans are doing a “better job” on health care, 46-42.
But in the 20 next-most vulnerable seats, the “tier 2” Democratic targets, voters said Democrats are doing a better job than Republicans on health care, by a margin of 47-40–a pretty solid preference for Democrats.

Good also presents conclusions based on data from Anzalone Liszt Research, commissioned by Health Care for America Now! in September, indicating “residents of districts held by Blue Dog Democrats say major health care reforms are necessary by a margin of 57-41” and “When the Democratic plan is described, they support it 50-43.” Good acknowledges that polls commissioned by political parties and other interested groups generally have a bias built into the questions, and then he quotes one of the key questions asked LV respondents:

Let me give you a little more information about the health insurance reform plan in Congress, and get your reaction
Under the plan, insurance companies would be required to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and couldn’t charge more or cancel if you get sick. People could keep their existing insurance, but if they aren’t covered at work they could choose between private insurance plans and a new public health insurance option. Everyone would be required to have health insurance, and families of four making less than eighty-eight thousand dollars would receive a discount. Small businesses would receive tax credits to help them provide coverage, and large companies would be required to either provide health insurance, or pay a tax to help employees buy their own coverage. The plan would be paid for with cost savings in the healthcare system, and higher taxes on households making over three hundred fifty thousand dollars a year.

LVs in Blue Dog districts supported the reforms by a margin of 50-43.
So, given the data indicating favorable support for the public option and other key reforms, why do these House members continue to oppose the Democratic health care reform proposals? It’s not hard to find opinions — everything from their financial contributions by private insurers and pharmaceutical companies to a belief that these majorities, even if real, are maleable and not based on deeply-held beliefs to ignorance and unwarranted fear of ‘tea-bagger’ protests. But the data does indicate that there is strong constituent support for far-reaching health care reform even in Blue Dog districts, and this gives reform advocates something to work with as they seek to firm it up.

Late yesterday afternoon, POLITICO reported that that the health insurance which the Republican National Committee provides for its employees covers elective abortions. The RNC had used the same plan since 1991, but as of today, that is no longer the case.
In a statement, RNC Chairman Michael Steel said:

“Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose. I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.”

I like drawing attention to Republican hypocrisy as much as the next guy, and I chuckled for a moment when I first saw this story. But it didn’t take a genius to see this move to restrict the committee’s insurance plan coming, and that’s a shame.
There’s no reason at all that the RNC’s health care plan shouldn’t cover elective abortion. It is a legal medical procedure, protected by the Constitution.
The fact is, employers ought to do everything they can to give employees the most-complete coverage possible, and part of me hates that RNC staffers will no longer get that benefit.

Dems who opposed the health care reform bill passed last week blundered badly for a number of reasons — ten to be exact, according to TDS Contributor Robert Creamer’s post in today’s edition of HuffPo. In addition to the principle reason cited by Creamer and other pundits — that the bill’s key provisions, including the publlic option, were supported by majorities in their districts — Creamer adds some interesting contentions among the ten, including these nuggets:

2). Once the bill is passed it will become even more popular. Social Security, Medicare, and child labor laws were all controversial when they were first passed. Now they are all revered features of the American landscape. The same will be true of the health insurance reform that makes health care a right for all Americans.

and,

4). If Democrats are successful at passing their agenda and nationalizing the Mid-terms – which would otherwise be terrific news for the most vulnerable Members – the Members who voted no on the health care bill will look like skunks at the garden party.

and,

6). News flash to Democrats who voted against the health bill: not one of the “tea party” gang is going to support you in 2010. Whether you voted yes or no, they are all going to work their hearts out for your opponent. The “tea party” gang you saw at your town meeting in August does not represent swing voters in the district – they are the hardcore base of the Republican Party.

and,

8). Voters like fighters…On the whole, swing voters – and certainly mobilizable voters – like fighters. They like candidates who have strong beliefs, and stick by their guns. That quality is an independent variable in deciding how persuadable voters cast their ballots.

Actually, all of Creamer’s points are both plausible and interesting. He concludes saying that all is not lost, even for those who voted against the legislation on the first lap, noting “each of the 39 Democrats – and all but one Republican — who voted against the health care bill have one more chance to redeem themselves. When the bill comes back from the House-Senate Conference there will be one more up or down vote on health care reform.”
To the average voter, the candidate who rides the tide of historic change that gives millions of American families a stronger sense of security looks a lot better than the one getting rolled by it.

Not to put too much lipstick on the ’09 elections pig, but Rhodes Cook has a positive (for Dems) perspective at Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball that merits a read. From Cook’s “’09 Elections: Some Parting Thoughts“:

…The Republicans did not emerge from this month’s elections unscathed. Their loss of a historically GOP House seat in upstate New York exposed the party’s own problem–their ongoing failure to win free-standing special congressional elections even on favorable terrain….The loss in upstate New York marked the fourth time since the beginning of 2008 that the Democrats picked up a previously Republican House seat in a special election, with no similar takeaways by the GOP.
The Democratic special election gains have not been localized in one part of the country, but rather have been scattered across the map–two in the deep South, one in the Midwest and now one in the rural Northeast, a loss that transforms the partisan count of House seats in the Empire State to Democrats 27, Republicans 2.

Cook provides some details on the other three House races, and makes a convincing argument, based on our losses of the governorships of VA and NJ, that the key demographic going forward for Dems is geographic — it’s about the ‘burbs:

The Democrats’ suburban collapse was not a problem unique to Virginia. It was replicated in Democratic New Jersey, where suburban Middlesex County (outside New York City) and Burlington County (outside Philadelphia) switched from the Obama column in 2008 to Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie in 2009.
This may ultimately be the biggest test for Democrats in 2010–to reclaim the upper hand in the nation’s suburbs. With the Democrats enjoying hegemony in the major cities and Republicans in rural and small-town America, the suburbs are the balance of power in 21st century politics, a major source of independent voters and the prime battleground for the two parties.
Suburban support was a cornerstone of Democratic victories in the elections of 2006 and 2008. But in 2009, the vote-rich suburbs of Virginia and New Jersey showed significant movement to the Republicans, giving them the upper hand in the gubernatorial contests in both states.

It’s an interesting perspective. Might be good for some of the creative thinkers in the Democratic Party to begin focusing on how to address the most critical concerns of suburban voters.

Yesterday, President Obama spent some time in Arlington National Cemetery. That’s not unusual for a commander-in-chief, but it’s not often that it produces a piece of journalism like the one written by James Gordon Meek.
Meek, a reporter for the New York Daily News, found the President in the cemetery’s Section 60 — the final resting place for many of the fallen from our recent wars. He was there to visit the grave of a friend who had died in Iraq, and hadn’t expected the President’s unscheduled stop:

What I got was an unexpected look into the eyes of a man who intertwined his roles as commander in chief and consoler in chief on a solemn day filled with remembrance and respect for sacrifices made – and sacrifices yet to be made.
I’m sure the cynics will assume this was just another Obama photoop.
If they’d been standing in my boots looking him in the eye, they would have surely choked on their bile.

The entire piece is well worth a read. I urge you to take a moment to check it out.

At The Plumline, Greg Sargent flags a new Pew poll, (conducted 10/28-11/8), indicating “some potentially ominous signs for Dems, finding that anti-incumbent sentiment is running at levels comparable to the worst in two decades.” Worse, Sargent adds, “Those planning to back a Republican next year are more enthusiastic than those backing Dems — by double digits.”
The outlook for Independent voters is also worrisome, according to the Pew poll overview:

Support for congressional incumbents is particularly low among political independents. Only 42% of independent voters want to see their own representative re-elected and just 25% would like to see most members of Congress re-elected. Both measures are near all-time lows in Pew Research surveys.

Before we go all chicken little over these numbers, consider that they could quickly change when we pass a health care bill, which should give the Obama administration and congressional Democrats a boost in their competence cred. The danger is that the Republicans, smelling Dem blood as a result of recent polls, will harden their opposition. It’s not hard to imagine Olympia Snowe, for example, concluding that a few less Democratic senators in ’10 would increase her personal bargaining leverage considerably.
Among the more encouraging findings of the Pew poll:

Despite the public’s grim mood, overall opinion of Barack Obama has not soured – his job approval rating of 51% is largely unchanged since July, although his approval rating on Afghanistan has declined….Currently, 47% of registered voters say they would vote for the Democratic candidate in their district or lean Democratic, while 42% would vote for the Republican or lean toward the GOP candidate. In August, 45% favored the Democrat in their district and 44% favored the Republican.

But the poll also provides additional cause for concern regarding increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan:

…40% say the number of troops in Afghanistan should be decreased, 32% say the number should be increased, and 19% favor keeping troop levels as they are now. These numbers are virtually unchanged from January. However, more Republicans now favor increasing the number of troops than did so in January (48% now, 38% then). The proportion of Democrats favoring a troop increase has fallen from 29% to 21% over the same period.

This may account for President Obama’s reconsideration of sending in more troops.
With respect to health care reform, the Pew poll indicates Dems face a daunting challenge in winning the confidence of voters:

While support for the health care bills before Congress ticked up slightly from last month, more Americans continue to oppose than support the overall package by a 47% to 38% margin. And strong opposition continues to outweigh strong support buy a 34% to 24% margin.
Currently, 38% support the health care bills in Congress, up slightly from 34% last month. The shift reflects a rebound in support for health care legislation among independents, particularly independents who lean toward the Democratic Party…Overall, 33% of independents favor the health care legislation being discussed in Congress, up from 26% in October. This is driven by a 16-point rebound in support (from 42% to 58%) among the subset of independents who say they lean Democratic. But overall, just over half of independents (51%) remain opposed to health care overhaul.

The study also notes a strong edge in the enthusiasm of opponents of Democratic health reform proposals, as well as deep and wide pessimism about the economy.
Polls are important. But they are almost always tempered by event. Health care reform is very much alive, there are signs that the economy is beginning to recover and victory in Afghanistan may turn on how the Administration refocuses the definition of the mission. Few Presidents have faced as many overwhelming challenges so early into their presidencies. It may be that in a year from now, even most skeptical voters will have to concede, “President Obama inherited an awful mess, but he came out of it OK.”