What's Worse Politically? Passing a Bill that 42% of the Country Supports and 49% Opposes or Looking Weak and Incompetent?
Thanks to the wonders of podcasting, I can now listen to NPR’s Marketplace while jogging practically anywhere in the world. Because of this, I had the opportunity over the weekend to hear Megan McCartle claim on Friday’s Marketplace that - and I’m paraphrasing here a bit - if the Democrats went ahead and passed healthcare without Republican support, it would cost them the House and the Senate this November. Apparently, McCartle is not the only one to hold this viewpoint, as today’s Washington Post features a quote from Rep. Cantor essentially making the same point; the Post quoted him as saing that “if Democrats push the bill through on party lines, they will ‘lose their majority in Congress in November’”.
Really? Let’s parse this logic for a second here. Implicit in these claims seems to be the following two beliefs. First, if the Democrats don’t push through healthcare reform on party lines, they will hold on to their majorities in the House and the Senate. Second, if they do push healthcare through and susequently lose their majorities, it will be because of the Healthcare bill.
John has already addressed the first of these points in his prior posts on how the midterm elections will most likely largely be a function of the state of the economy (see here and here), so I’m going to set aside the question of how the Democrats would do in the 2010 midterms if they had never even brought up healthcare (answer: if unemployment is still at 10%, lousy).
Instead, I want to focus on the second question: are the Democrats somehow better off politically if they fail to pass a healthcare bill? Here are the numbers according to the most recent Gallup Poll. If the two parties can not reach an agreement, then 42% of Americans favor passing the Democratic plan, and 49% oppose it. Note that that 49% could include those who want a public option, a single payer plan, etc. But either way, 42% support the plan, 49% oppose it. If the question wording is changed to include the use of reconciliation, then support drops to 39% and opposition goes up to 52%.
So if the bill is passed, it will not have the support of the majority of the country. At the same time, if healthcare fails, then a significant portion of Obama’s first year(s) in office will have been wasted on a failed major policy agenda and the Democrats will be portrayed as divided, incompetent, etc. Which would you rather take into the midterm elections? The President/Congress that succeeded where Clinton, Truman, etc. had failed in the past by passing healthcare reform - but without the support of a majority of the population - or divided, incompetent, failure? Now I’m not saying that the fate of this bill will significantly impact who controls the House or Senate after the 2010 elections one way or another, but it seems to me that if it did, then not passing your most meaningful domestic policy objective would ultimately be more damaging to your political prospects then passing it with the support of only 40% of the country.
Comments
We could also invoke the time-honored political science tradition and create a 2×2 typology. On one axis, position on health care. On the other axis, their vote choice given that outcome occuring. In other words, of that 42%, how many of them would vote Dem if it passes? If it fails? Of that 49% against it, how many vote Dem if it passes? If it fails?
Granted, this is a WAY oversimplified typology (leaves out the 9% without an opinion on healthcare and the likely 60% who won’t vote at all), but I think a very simple though exercise highlights the main point: I don’t think those %s change depending on outcome. Thus, the game is: pass health care or don’t; it likely has very little impact on your electoral safety.
Posted by: Matt Jarvis | March 1, 2010 04:27 PM
We could also invoke the time-honored political science tradition and create a 2×2 typology. On one axis, position on health care. On the other axis, their vote choice given that outcome occuring. In other words, of that 42%, how many of them would vote Dem if it passes? If it fails? Of that 49% against it, how many vote Dem if it passes? If it fails?
Granted, this is a WAY oversimplified typology (leaves out the 9% without an opinion on healthcare and the likely 60% who won’t vote at all), but I think a very simple though exercise highlights the main point: I don’t think those %s change depending on outcome. Thus, the game is: pass health care or don’t; it likely has very little impact on your electoral safety.
Posted by: Matt Jarvis | March 1, 2010 04:29 PM
On a slightly different topic - doesn’t Eric Cantor want the Democrats to lose their House majority? If he were right about this, would he share that information with the Dems, out of his deep-seated concern for their welfare? Just wondering.
Posted by: Andrew Rudalevige | March 1, 2010 05:17 PM
It’s McArdle, not McArtle.
Getting that right doesn’t even require one to speculate about the future consequences of an uncertain event.
Posted by: Thomas | March 1, 2010 05:50 PM
Isn’t there a levels-of-analysis problem here? That is, it’s quite possible different forces are at work in some individual races versus the election as a whole. Thus, while you may be right at the level of the party to pass less popular legislation, it may not be in the interest of any individual (and esp. marginal) Democrats to push for it. Especially if they’re not pivotal.
Posted by: Boris Shor | March 1, 2010 06:16 PM
Another issue is in the polling. The opposition to the reform includes a large number of respondents who don’t understand what is in the bill. Polls asking about support for specifics within the legislation do find majority support. So, you could argue that the “lack of support” is not genuine, but merely the result of spin and misinformation. If voters come to learn more about the actual legislation, generalized support may go up (and electoral odds too).
Posted by: Kimberly Nalder | March 1, 2010 08:52 PM
I agree with Andrew above. The only rock solid axiom I know of in political strategy is that, when your opponent offers advice, you should do the opposite. See also: warnings that he’ll seem all-talk every time Obama gives a televised address.
Unfortunately, there appear to be 10 Senators or so who take advice from their Republican colleagues as gospel. I say appear, because in reality they just want a pretext for inaction.
Posted by: Zach | March 2, 2010 10:32 AM
The people I hear saying that the bill will be a disaster for Democrats are Republicans or conservatives who do not like HCR.
Here is the follow-up question:
If HCR passage will be great for Republicans why doesn’t Mitch McConnell drop his HCR filibuster?
Done deal. HCR would pass without a single Republican vote. The Republicans would sweep the table come November.
If they don’t believe their own propaganda why should we?
Posted by: tomtom | March 2, 2010 03:32 PM
is this like neo-liberal reforms? Unpopular in isolation but actually contributing to the reelection of govts because they are seen as making tough decisions.
Posted by: Geoff Robinson | March 2, 2010 09:24 PM
This is a key question. In a 2007 American Journal of Political Science article (http://www.jstor.org/pss/4620079), Matthew Lebo, Adam McGlynn, and Monkey Cage alum Gregory Koger find that voting with their party has electoral costs for marginal members, while winning contested votes has electoral benefits for the majority party as a whole. The optimal strategy for the majority party is thus to pass such a bill with the minimum necessary votes, while allowing as many marginal members as possible to defect via “catch and release.” Presumably, that’s just what Nancy Pelosi is trying to do on health care.
Posted by: Jim Shoch | March 3, 2010 01:45 AM
I want more choices than just these two.
John says that the democrats will lose seats but that doesn’t remove all accountability for their actions. What they do can still increase or decrease their loses, so I don’t think it’s a simple matter of dying with your boots on. I also don’t think passing HCR will only hurt in the next election. Unless HCR turns out to be nothing but sunshine and rainbows, forcing thru an unpopular bill could be an anchor around democrats necks for years to come. If HCR has turned into a no win situation, why not shift to your #2, #3, and #4 most important policy objectives?
Posted by: Eilene Left | March 3, 2010 01:12 PM