Polls: In Key States, Public Option Far More Popular Than Senate Plan
What do they mean by "Far More Popular?" They mean, there's a difference of about 25 points...
 |
20100222
The math here isn't that advanced, guys...
Hell, even I can do it:
What do they mean by "Far More Popular?" They mean, there's a difference of about 25 points...
What do they mean by "Far More Popular?" They mean, there's a difference of about 25 points...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
* In Nevada, only 34% support the Senate bill, while 56% support the public option.
ReplyDelete* In Illinois, only 37% support the Senate bill, while 68% support the public option.
* In Washington State, only 38% support the Senate bill, while 65% support the public option.
* In Missouri, only 33% support the Senate bill, while 57% support the public option.
* In Virginia, only 36% support the Senate bill, while 61% support the public option.
* In Iowa, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.
*In Minnesota, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.
* In Colorado, only 32% support the Senate bill, while 58% support the public option.
The numbers speak volume . . . yet, somehow, news of the polls haven't yet made it on today's top news headlines on Yahoo!News or Google so far. But I am keeping my eyes peeled, no doubt anytime soon now the main stream media will want to take a break from their coverage of the tea parties and seize onto that piece of information.
Or...at the very least...I expect Gibbs...or gasp! the President even---Who knows? Stranger things have been known to happen---or someone in the Democratic party...anyone...will put that information to good use and make mention of it...
I am holding my breath with anticipation...
For some reason the only number that matters to Reid and Obama has been 60.
ReplyDeleteThey may still grow a pair between the two of them :)
ReplyDeleteSome bold senators started a letter calling on Majority Leader Harry Reid to pass the public health insurance option through "reconciliation," which only needs a simple majority in the Senate.
From Rachel Maddow's interview Thursday with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius:
ReplyDeleteMaddow: "The private insurance company writ large hasn't done a great job. That's why we want a public option to compete with them. These 18 Democratic senators want to bring that back into the fold. If that happened, would the administration fight for it?"
Sebelius: "Well, I think if it's...Certainly. If it's part of the decision of the Senate leadership to move forward, absolutely."
WhipCongress.com reports that 21 senators to date have signed Sen. Michael Bennet's letter -- calling on Harry Reid to pass the public option through reconciliation.
What will Reid do? It might come down to Nevada voters.
The pressure is on:
Highlights from the Nevada poll (commissioned by PCCC/DFA/Credo):
- 34% support for current Senate bill (32% of Independents)
- 58% support for public option (61% of Independents)
- 55% support "reconciliation" on health care (64% of Independents)
Still holding my breath . . .
ReplyDeleteFor some reason the only number that matters to Yahoo!News has been 65 percents.
65 percent is the number of people who say Tiger Woods should resume golfing this season in this ABC News poll: click here for a PDF with charts and questionnaire.
Prominently featured though is a fair and balanced ASSOCIATED PRESS article by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Erica Werner advocating that Obama ultimately "settle for a pared-down plan"...
ReplyDeleteI quote:
"The final bill could look a lot like what Republicans have been calling for over many years. It would include federal funding for high-risk pools that would extend coverage to people denied because of medical problems, a new insurance marketplace for small employers and individuals buying their own policies, as well as tax credits for small businesses."
The Constitution does not require 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation. A majority will do. That’s called democracy.
ReplyDeleteBeware getting rid of the filibuster.
ReplyDeleteIt has worked well in the past. Preventing far rightwing trogs from ascending to federal benches, for example.
What has happened recently is that approx %80 of all Democratic Senate legislation has faced a filibuster. An apparent abuse of that power. While in the past the filibuster has often served as a small c conservative block against flying off the handle. One of the Senate's historic rolls. That being deliberative, contemplative, and cautious: as a guardian against the common, raucous voice in the House. (Tell that to James Inhofe.)
Though, of course, we can remember how Senator James O. Eastland (D Mississippi) blocked civil rights legislation as a routine matter. Preventing blacks from obtaining their most basic rights as American citizens. Fighting to save Jim Crow to the death.
But on the other hand, when progressives (such as they are) are in the minority the filibuster also prevents the far right from going hog wild. So the filibuster works both ways.
But now the filibuster is being abused by the minority. They see themselves as enmeshed in a fight to the death for their very existence. Fighting for an America defined by Conservatives as a Reaganesque, Christian, gun toting, balanced budget free market America which, they believe, Obama wants to take away from them. For the common sense America (as far as it goes) Obama represents to them is foreign and "socialist." That's what these numbskulls believe.
Which reveals, in my admittedly “loony left” opinion, a lack of connect with reality. And that is why our times or so interesting: for the basic battle is between reality and a fantasy world Walt Disney never even dreamed of. (Though he helped create it.)
Reality tells us there is global warming. Reality tells us that leaving American healthcare to the private sector simply puts profit above healthcare. (That should be obvious!) Reality tells us that Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter and the like are totally mad.
Enough though.... on and on.
We have met the party of NO and he is us:
ReplyDeleteSen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) threw a wrench into Democratic efforts to get a public option passed through reconciliation, saying that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it.
"I don't think the timing of it is very good," the West Virginia Democrat said on Monday. "I'm probably not going to vote for that, although I'm strongly for the public option, because I think it creates, at a time when we really need as much bipartisan[ship] ... as possible. "
[link]
For Democrats determined to get a public option passed into law, his non-endorsement represents a big blow. The party needs 51 votes for the reconciliation route to work. And as it stands now, there are already an estimated half-dozen Senators who would oppose the idea either out of policy opposition to the public plan or institutional concerns about the use of reconciliation.
What is making me sick
ReplyDeleteis our elected representatives
no longer listen to the people.
They listen to lobbyists,
teabag dementia and
Foxnews nutcases.
What do the tea baggers want? Well, we sort of all know. But that's all irrelevant. They will still be unhappy even if they get what they want. There will always be new enemies, new hidden forces making their lives miserable. They will always be at war.
ReplyDeleteWhat does Obama want?
ReplyDeleteEzra Klein on the Public Option:
"One other point on the public option: This has been a complete and utter failure of White House leadership. They need to give this effort their support, or they need to kill it by publicly stating their opposition. But they can't simply wait for someone else to make the decision for them, which has been their strategy until now.
If the White House decides that reviving the public option is a good idea, there's reason to believe the Senate would follow them on that. It would make some sense, after all: The public option is popular, its death was partly the product of industry pressure, and the sudden spate of high-profile rate increases offers a nice rhetorical pivot for anyone who wants to argue that individuals should be able to choose an insurer who's not a profit-hungry beast. Plus, Democrats need an excited base going into the 2010 election, and this may be the only way to get it.
If the White House decides to stick with the effort to look like hopeful bipartisans in the face of Republican opposition, that would make sense, too. The sell on reconciliation is that it's a few final tweaks to a bill that has already passed. The White House's health-care proposal reflected that theory. Resuscitating the public option is a very different play: It's a big change rather than a small tweak, and it's a polarizing decision after weeks of rhetoric emphasizing comity.
But the White House has stayed quiet -- and confusing. Publicly, Kathleen Sebelius said the White House would do whatever Harry Reid wanted. Privately, there's been no support for this public option push, and the idea didn't even make a token appearance in their white paper. They wish this wasn't happening, but they're not willing to put a stop to it. Instead, they hoping someone else -- maybe Jay Rockefeller -- stands up and calls the play."
The sense I've gotten is that neither the White House nor Harry Reid wants to be the one to take the hit which, for some reason, they think they'll take if they pass something overwhelmingly popular.
ReplyDeleteSo we've basically got two camps each saying "You stand up first, then we'll follow you," "No, *you* stand up first..."