New Poll: Dems' 2010 Prospects Tied to the Public Option
by mcjoan
Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:30:04 AM PST
When Dems were told they were going to get change in 2006 and 2008, that's what we expected. Now it would seem rank and file Democratic voters--not activists, but regular voters--are using the only leverage they have, their votes, to demand that change:
This is striking: A new national poll finds that fully one third of Democratic voters say that they’re "less likely" to vote in 2010 if Congress doesn’t pass a public option, underscoring the possibility that dropping the provision seriously risks dampening the Dem base’s enthusiasm.
I was sent an advance look at these numbers by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America, which commissioned the poll from the nonpartisan Research 2000 and will release the results later this morning. The poll asks:
If Congress does not pass a public option as part of health care reform, will that make you more likely or less likely to vote in the 2010 general election, or no effect?
Among Dems, 33% say it would make them less likely, while less than one fourth that amount, 7%, say it would make them more likely. Sixty percent say it would have no effect.
Among independent voters, 21% say it would make them less likely, and 13% say it would make them more likely, with 66% saying it would have no effect, suggesting that passing a public option would have a marginal impact among indys.
In another result from the poll, Dems want their representatives to, you know, represent them:
When asked: "If a Democratic member of Congress votes against a public health insurance option, would you want a more progressive candidate to run against them in a Democratic primary?" 84 percent of respondents said "yes," 11 percent said "no," and 5 percent said they weren't sure.
A similar majority wants to see Lieberman punished for his abandonment of the party:
Eighty-one percent of Democrats said they would like to see the senator's chairmanship -- which he was allowed to keep despite campaigning for Sen. John McCain in 2008 -- taken away should he sustain a filibuster. Only 10 percent of Democrats said there should be no punishment. Even fewer (nine percent) said they had yet to make up their minds, underscoring just how divisive Lieberman is within the party.
An additional 43 percent of independents agreed that Lieberman should lose his post, with 30 percent saying no. Only ten percent of Republicans, meanwhile, thought Lieberman should be punished under such a scenario -- while 66 percent said he should not.
It's an old cliche that Washington is out of touch with the rest of the country, but cliches exist for a reason--they tend to be true and nothing demonstrates this one more than this debate. The Democratic party leadership needs to understand where the vast majority of where their party is, and Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman don't exemplify it. Harry Reid and the White House never should have allowed them to control the levers on this debate.
This is going to hurt no one in 2010 more than Harry Reid. The Democratic party in Nevada needs labor, it needs their boots on the ground in organizing and in whipping up enthusiasm. Lose the public option, water down healthcare, and pass an excise tax on high quality insurance plans, and watch labor walk away from Reid's re-election campaign. This poll needs to be a wake-up call to him, particularly, in figuring out how to salvage something from this debacle. |
