TPMDC

A Closer Look At The Health Care Vote

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

United States Capitol

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Let's take a look at the breakdown of the vote on the health care bill -- the people who went against their leadership, or the people whose votes run seemingly counter to their districts' presidential votes in 2008 -- and in some cases, both.

Much has been made of the Democrats who voted no, and the fact that most of them come from districts that voted for John McCain. Thus, a vote against a major Obama policy initiative would certainly seem to be the safe thing to do -- just as Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) became the only Republican to vote yes, and his district voted 75% for Obama.

The single largest group, however, is one that hasn't been commented on very much: Republicans from districts that voted for Obama, and who voted no on the bill. There are 32 of them in all: Judy Biggert (IL); Brian Bilbray (CA); Mary Bono Mack (CA); Ken Calvert (CA); Dave Camp (MI); John Campbell (CA); Mike Castle (DE), currently a Senate candidate in an Obama state; Charlie Dent (PA); David Dreier (CA); Randy Forbes (VA); Elton Gallegly (CA); Jim Gerlach (PA); a candidate for governor in an Obama state; Mark Kirk (IL), a Senate candidate in Obama's home state; Leonard Lance (NJ); Tom Latham (IA), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Dan Lungren (CA), Donald Manzullo (IL); Thaddeus McCotter (MI); Buck McKeon (CA); Erik Paulsen (MN); Tom Petri (WI); Dave Reichert (WA); Mike Rogers (MI); Peter Roskam (IL); Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL); Paul Ryan (WI); Lee Terry (NE); Patrick Tiberi (OH); Fred Upton (MI); Frank Wolf (VA); and Bill Young (FL).

There were 31 Democrats who voted no and came from McCain districts: Jason Altmire (PA); John Boccieri (OH); Dan Boren (OK); Rick Boucher (VA); Allen Boyd (FL); Bobby Bright (AL); Ben Chandler (KY); Travis Childers (MS); Lincoln Davis (TN); Chet Edwards (TX); Bart Gordon (TN); Parker Griffith (AL); Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD); Tim Holden (PA); Suzanne Kosmas (FL); Frank Kratovil (MD); Betsy Markey (CO); Eric Massa (NY); Jim Matheson (UT); Mike McIntyre (NC); Michael McMahon (NY); Charlie Melancon (LA), a candidate for Senate; Walt Minnick (ID); Colin Peterson (MN); Mike Ross (AR); Heath Shuler (NC); Ike Skelton (MO); John Tanner (TN); Gene Taylor (MS); and Harry Teague (NM).

There were 18 Democrats who come from McCain districts, but also voted yes on the bill: Marion Berry (AR); Chris Carney (PA); Kathy Dahlkemper (PA); Brad Ellsowrth (IN); Gabrielle Giffords (IN); Baron Hill (IN); Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ); Harry Mitchell (AZ); Allan Mollohan (WV); John Murtha (PA); Tom Perriello (VA); Earl Pomeroy (ND); Nick Rahall (WV); John Salazar (CO); Vic Snyder (AR); Zack Space (OH); John Spratt (SC); and Charlie Wilson (OH).

And here's another curious bunch -- the eight Democrats from Obama districts, who voted no on the bill: John Adler (NJ); Brian Baird (WA); John Barrow (GA); Artur Davis (AL), a candidate for governor in a McCain state; Larry Kissell (NC); Dennis Kucinich (OH); Scott Murphy (NY); and Glenn Nye (VA).

(District vote information was compiled from CQ.)

Join the Conversation!

27 comments

Recommend Recommend (0)

CJ

user-pic

November 9, 2009 3:20 PM   

Was anybody polling congressional districts on whether likely voters favor or oppose the public option?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 3:27 PM   

The single largest group, however, is one that hasn't been commented on very much: Republicans from districts that voted for Obama, and who voted no on the bill.

And these people should be targeted in the next election.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 4:33 PM    in reply to CT Voter

The problem is that Obama's not on the ballot...His voters stayed home in VA and NJ...Unless y'all crank up the war machine, quick, I see the pendulum swinging back our way.
P.S. How've you been?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 4:45 PM    in reply to SFCWallace

Well, if you want to draw grand sweeping conclusions from the outcomes in NJ and VA, go ahead. The two races with national implications were won by Democrats who publicly supported Democratic proposals. Deeds ran away from Obama, and that turned out really well for him. Christie, on the other hand, featured Obama in his ads. That also worked out really well for him.

Haven't seen you around, dude. Can't way I really like the avatar, but you knew that already, didn't you?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 3:29 PM   

Kucinich voted against it because it didn't go far enough. Very different than the other 'no' votes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 3:50 PM    in reply to Tamarat

I wonder if Dennnis would've made this vote if the tally were at 217-217?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 4:00 PM    in reply to Dorn76

Not sure. I would have been mad at him if he had -- I respect his views (and usually agree with him), but would prefer a compromise bill to no bill at all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 4:11 PM    in reply to Tamarat

Kucinich voted "no" because House leadership, possibly at the request of the White House, stripped the bill of Kucinich's 'State Single Payer' amendment which would have removed legal barriers for states to choose to enact single payer/Medicare bills.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 3:33 PM   

quick! gather all the conservative democratic activists, organize and lead with the charge, "More Conservative Democrats!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 4:19 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

someone has to stop the democrat's socialist agenda!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 4:11 PM   

It's amazing that people who vote against the bill are considered safe even when the majority of the voters want it and Obama carried their districts.

Obama campaigned hard on healthcare reform and won overwhelmingly. I'm still trying to see how voting for it has suddenly become "risky." Geez.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 4:22 PM    in reply to FreeRider

well obviously it's that darn public option that you spent all last month arguing that obama never campaigned for.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 5:34 PM    in reply to fkaZk0sm0

Find some instance where Obama ever uttered the words "public option" during his two years of campaigning for healthcare reform. Either that or STFU.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 6:16 PM    in reply to FreeRider

man, you are dense.

you spent all last month (if not the last 12 months) defending people (and obama himself) who support health care reform but don't necessarily support a public option. and NOW you ask why opposing a health care bill that has a public option might be a safe move for members in districts that went for obama??

I WAS ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION WITH YOUR OWN REASONING.

(not that reason ever plays a starring role in your comments.)

if obama wasn't out there campaigning for the public option (YOUR premise) then voting against a bill that includes it, shouldn't be incompatible with representing a district that voted for obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 10:50 PM    in reply to fkaZk0sm0

No, asshole. YOU'RE dense! I never defended Obama for NOT supporting a public option. He DOES support a public option.

I said he never PROMISED a public option during the campaign so all of those people who claim he's breaking a promise are full of shit!

Not one time during the entire campaign did he promise a public option.

The democrats who are opposed to healthcare reform are not just opposing a public option. They don't want any reform. Period.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 4:24 PM   

What about Democrats who voted yes but are in McCain states? I am thinking of Dennis Moore (D-KS) but would be interested to see all of them included in the breakdown as well.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 4:28 PM   

Never mind, missed that it was districts rather than states.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

November 9, 2009 4:47 PM   

The most critical vote has not been reported here: the vote on the House Rule that let the Stupak Amendment be voted on. Everyone voting on that knew two things:1) the Stupak Amendment would pass and that the HCR would subsequently have a better shot at passing. So any politician claiming to be pro-choice who voted yes on the House rule shafted their pro-choice constituency whether or not they voted no for cover on the Stupak Amendment proper. Dingell is a case in point. The other group who may exist are any Republicans who voted yes on the Rule allowing all the subsequent actions to flow from it while maintaining to their base that they opposed the HCR bill. I'd be quite interested in seeing that vote.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 4:48 PM   

I think few of the 32 GOPers in Obama districts are first- or second-term Representatives, contra the Dems in McCain districts voting no.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 4:58 PM   

I don't think there's much evidence to support the theory that voting against any particular President's legislation is going to harm a house member of either party even if that district favored that particular President was on the ballot. There's just no evidence to support a correlation of any significance. When voters cast their ballot on a member of the House it is far more likely that the concerns at the top of the list will be local and general and not tied to a Presidential race two years before.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 5:09 PM    in reply to oleeb

i don't think that is the inference that you are being asked to draw.

the result of the most recent presidential election as a point of comparison is only being used to indicate the current overall red/blue orientation of the district. while not a perfect device by any stretch, it is however still a useful measure.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 5:22 PM    in reply to fkaZk0sm0

In what sense useful other than for gabbing about it? There's no useful correlation to be made if no action or reaction results from a representative casting his/her vote a certain way.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 6:06 PM    in reply to oleeb

useful in the sense that because we don't have polling for public support for or opposition to health care reform in every congressional district, if we want to get an idea of which members might be voting against the grain of their district this is the most readily available (and current) measure.

IF healthcare reform is going to be an issue in the 2010 elections, it is going to be in districts where the representative votes against the grain of the district.

it isn't about whether or not the member "vot(ed) against any particular President's legislation". it is about whether or not the representative voted against legislation that their constituents support.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 4:59 PM   

My guess is that after they got to 220, the remaining dems voted against it, because they believed that politically in their district it would sell. Now, if they did not get the 220, I would bet that a good number of the dems who voted no would have been willing to vote yes. Bottom line is the bill passed, 220 or 250 makes no difference.

Now, the repukes are another story. I bet a number of those 32 districts are ripe for pick up. Dems just need good candidates to run, not fools like the loser in VA or corzine. Good candidates and they can be picked up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 5:57 PM   

Rs who voted no from (let's call them) blue states and Ds who voted yes from red states were still voting with their party. I can understand Ds who voted no from red states, and suspect (hope?) that some of them would have been willing to step up and vote yes, if necessary, but the most interesting story, not yet told, is WHY the 8 Ds from blue states voted no. The explanation about Kucinich makes sense (I suspect he, too, would have voted yes if necessary, but the whip enabled him to vote his frustration. What about the other 7?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 10:06 PM   

Not my rep, but wanted to see what some of the Dems had in mind...

Congressman Brian Baird’s(D-WA) Statement Regarding H.R. 3962

"I strongly believe there is a need for health care reform and I have offered my own proposal for how this should be accomplished....

..The most important of these is the simple fact that we do not yet have reliable estimates of how this legislation will impact the premiums paid by people who already have insurance....

...To insist that members vote on this legislation without having cost estimates of Medicare and Medicaid impacts by CMS or an estimate of premium impacts from the CBO seems premature and unwise..."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 10, 2009 12:35 AM   

One prime pickup will be IL-13 where Judy Biggert who claims she's pro-choice voted for the Stupak amendment and against the bill. If you want to help Scott Harper take her down you can go here and donate to the cause.

http://www.scottharperforcongress.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

PollTracker

More polls »

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on