Nate Silver: Are Progressives on Tilt?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/are-progressives-on-tilt.html

Are Progressives on Tilt?
by Nate Silver @ 2:28 PM


There's an fascinating debate going on in liberal circles about just how serious progressive Democratic congressmen are about voting down a health care bill that does not contain a public option. The threat to do so has been made frequently and forcefully, both by rank-and-file members and by the Majority Leader. But is it a credible one?

On the one hand, I'd have trouble being persuaded that progressives would actually prefer to maintain the status quo than to pass a bill without a public option. Now, I can certainly imagine a bill being so bad that it would be a net setback to progressives' goals -- say you had something without a public option, employer mandate, or a national exchange, but with a strict individual mandate and which only provided subsidies up to 200 percent of poverty -- and that this bill were funded through a fairly regressive means like a value added tax. That would be a pretty terrible piece of policy and progressives (and most everyone else not employed by an insurance company) would be right to oppose it. But if you took something more like the current House bill, stripped it of the public option (replacing it with co-ops, I guess) and maintained everything else, this bill would still accomplish several important progressive and pubic policy goals (and avoid a major near-term political disaster for the President). Progressives, rightly, would like such a bill less. But for them to prefer the status quo to such a solution doesn't seem credible. That's why a lot of people have trouble taking the progressives' threats at face value.

On the other hand, suppose that we reverse this argument: are there Blue Dogs who would prefer the status quo to a bill with a public option -- but would prefer a bill without a public option to the status quo? The qualifier is important. Three House committees have already approved bills containing public options. In each case, some Blue Dog votes were lost. But how many of these Blue Dogs would have voted to approve the bill if it didn't contain a public option? That is far less clear. Some of them might have, almost certainly. But progressives ought to be wary of Blue Dogs (and Republicans) who argue against a public option -- when they may simply be opposed to the entire concept of meaningful health care reform.

To recap:

A. If the only two choices were to pass an (otherwise decent) bill without a public option and to pass nothing at all, and everyone knew these were the only two choices, I believe the bill would almost certainly pass; progressives would cave.

B. On the other hand, if the only two choices were to pass a bill with a public option and nothing at all, and everyone knew these were the only two choices, I believe at least some Blue Dogs would cave and the bill would stand a decent shot at passing. This is far less clear, however; it is incumbent upon progressives to determine whether a bill with a public option really does stand a shot a passage. If not then their threat is idle at best, and self-destructive at worst.

snip//

In poker, one of the situations when a player is most prone to go on tilt is when he had been on a winning streak and then begins to lose. It's one thing when you simply aren't getting cards all night and lose money slowly and steadily. When this happens, most poker players are pretty good at accepting that it just isn't their night and will continue to play reasonably well, if perhaps a little overcautiously. But if you had been winning -- if you had already "booked" the win in your mind -- and then you start losing, things can get really, really ugly. You'll make bold, rash, irrational gambles. Your big win will turn into a small win and, if you're not careful, into a big loss.

This is sort of the situation that progressives are in right now. They're not in a mood to compromise. They're in a mood to gamble. This may well be irrational. It may well prove to be self-destructive. But the one thing you never, never want to do with someone who is on tilt is to try to bluff them off their hand.

"But progressives ought to be wary of Blue Dogs (and Republicans) who argue against a public option -- when they may simply be opposed to the entire concept of meaningful health care reform."

The Magistrate.
I guess I need to see this play out to find out. Maybe they're all playing games.

As indicating in most instances, conservative complaints over 'a public option' are simply a mask for fundamental opposition to the entire project of reforming the health care industry. Therefore, they are not bids for compromise, which might result in some portion of reform if met, but simply a first outwork of a defensive line, behind which are several more. Thus the opposition really cannot be negotiated with, but rather must be fought down and broken.

Of course, I am opposed to thinking of politics as a game. It's not. It has very real consequences for a lot of very real people. Nevertheless, Silver has some interesting things to say.

To the Progressive Caucus, however, I say this. They would be unwise to betray the base at this time. They have insisted on a "robust" public option. I define that to mean a plan that is projected to cover 50+ million Americans within five years (enough to actually "keep the insurance companies honest" and drive down costs). They have also pledged to not support the plan unless the public option pays doctors and hospitals at Medicare +5% rates.

If they abandon either of these two, essential promises, they will feel the wrath of their constituents, and the Democratic Party will risk losing its liberal base. We want single-payer. Absent that, we will accept the public option, but only if it is "robust," as described above. Personally, I would much rather have nothing pass than to see Congress pass a bill that is little more than a big give-away to the health insurance cabal.

:dem:

-Laelth

independents, too. So I would call this 'between a rock and a hard spot'.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/major-factor-in-obamas-wapo-poll-slide-drop-among-dems-liberals/

Major Factor In Obama’s WaPo Poll Slide: Drop Among Dems, Liberals

A major factor in President Obama’s slide in today’s big Washington Post/ABC News poll, which is preoccupying the political classes today, is his surprisingly sharp drops among Democrats and even liberals, according to crosstabs that were sent my way.

Much talk today has focused on Obama’s difficulties with independents. But the drop among Dems and liberals is also a key driving factor in the President’s skid, according to WaPo polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta, who graciously provided the additional data.

This suggests Obama’s conciliatory approach to the GOP, and his lack of clarity around the public option — both of which are presumably alienating Dems and liberals — could be key factors driving his dip.

The numbers tell the story: In three key cases where Obama has dropped significantly, he’s also dropped by sizable margins among Dems and liberals. Let’s take the major findings driving the discussion today, and compare them with his drop among Dems and libs:

* The WaPo poll found that “49 percent now express confidence that Obama will make the right decisions for the country, down from 60 percent at the 100-day mark in his presidency.”

On that question, among liberals, Obama has dropped a surprising 12 points, from 90% to 78%, in the same time period. Among Dems, he’s dropped eight points, from 90% to 82%.

* The WaPo poll found that “forty-nine percent now say they think he will be able to spearhead significant improvements in the system, down nearly 20 percentage points from before he took office.”

On that question, among Dems, Obama has fallen a surprising 11 points during that time period, from 90% to 79%. Among liberals it was even steeper: A drop of 13 points, from 84% to 71%. (This could also partly be a referendum on Congress, but it’s still suggestive.)

* The WaPo poll also found a steep drop in approval of Obama’s handling of health care, which now stands at 46%, down 11 points from 57% in April.

But guess what: The drop during that time period was the same among liberals: Down 11 points, from 81% in April to 70% now. Among Dems overall, Obama fell six points, from 83% to 77%.

WaPo polling analyst Agiesta cautioned that independents were likely a greater factor, but she said Obama’s problems among Dems and liberals were clearly playing a key role: “This is the first sign that something is going wrong with his base.”

I know you are very loyal to Obama, but you still don't hide from reality. You are not blind, as is clear by the way you pay attention to what's going on in politics.

Thank you for contributing so much reality to DU. It does mater.

:toast:

:dem:

-Laelth

what's really going on, so I have to pay attention.

I haven't given up on him yet though. ;)

Of course, that won't stop me from screaming bloody murder when I think he's making a mistake.

As I am sure you have noticed. ;)

:dem:

-Laelth

I think they see that the government is playing with their chips and they won't be given a spot at the table.

Silver defines "tilting" as making irrational decisions after a long string of victories.

I ask this of my fellow liberals on DU......do YOU feel like we've had a long string of victories?

Because from where I am standing, the Democratic party has openly and consciously been running away from the liberals for nearly 30 years, now, and what watered-down legislation that may have been passed that could ever be construed as victories have all essentially been center-right policies or insignificant band-aids.

In short, liberals have their backs up because they have not won a damned thing in many years despite our party being in power. We are the gambler who has slowly lost everything through many, many hands and are beginning to suspect the game is rigged.

If the Administration and Congress do not throw a bone to the left soon, this is going to get ugly. I have a feeling that if they take the left for granted on an issue this big after so many betrayals, it may be the straw that broke the camel's back.

And they can keep trying until they get it right and if all the pet programs have to suffer, so be it.