TPMDC
Poll: Ben Nelson Very Vulnerable In 2012 Thanks To Health Care Vote
Gov. Dave Heineman (R-NE) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Share
Send to a friend!
A new Rasmussen poll of Nebraska finds that Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson's vote on the health care bill has put him in a tough spot in his deep-red state. In a test poll for his re-election campaign -- which won't happen until 2012 -- Nelson trails Republican Gov. Dave Heineman by a two-to-one margin.
The numbers: Heineman 61%, Nelson 30%, and 4% "other." From the pollster's analysis: "Nelson's health care vote is clearly dragging his numbers down. Just 17% of Nebraska voters approve of the deal their senator made on Medicaid in exchange for his vote in support of the plan. Overall, 64% oppose the health care legislation, including 53% who are strongly opposed. In Nebraska, opposition is even stronger than it is nationally."
If Nelson were to now block the health care deal, though, he would still trail: Heineman 47%, Nelson 37%, plus 10% "other." In this case, Heineman would lose about a quarter of his voters to the Nelson or undecided column. But on the other hand, Nelson would also lose votes from the left, with some Democratic voters now wanting a third-party option.
The silver lining for Nelson, in the middle of all this controversy, is that he won't be on the ballot again until 2012. At that point, the politics of the health care debate will have changed in some fashion, and things could potentially improve for him -- they certainly can't get much worse.
Comments (40) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 29, 2009 11:58 AM
Cue FDL demand that he primaried and replaced with a more "progressive" candidate who will surely win over the voters of Nebraska.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
i said GOOD DAY sir
December 29, 2009 12:07 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
If only Scott Kleeb could have won in 2008...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
December 29, 2009 12:20 PM in reply to i said GOOD DAY sir
In a Nebraska where Scott Kleeb would have won, Ben Nelson would be a Republican or an Arlen Specter-type Democrat fearing a primary from the left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
December 29, 2009 4:27 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
No need. It's already a foregone conclusion that anyone who cares about forward progress in America will be supporting a primary against Nelson. The only question is if there will be a viable candidate. For now, it seems the focus will be on those up for election in 2010.
If you don't use your majority .... you lose your majority. And deservedly so. MHO, you should spend more time attacking conservatives and supporting liberals instead of the other way around.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
December 29, 2009 4:35 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Don't be so snarky about FDL or whomever supposedly forcing progressives down the throats of red staters.
The only reason 102% of Amurcuns insist that they're "conservative", is a 30+-year marketing campaign that had no rebuttal. It wasn't that the struggling Kansan really wanted to believe that war machines and sociopathic corporations had his best interests in mind (as well as those of the Unborn)... it's just that their normal frustrations weren't being acknowledged and stroked by anyone in the Establishment Democratic Party.
As recently as the mid-'90s, there were non-right-wing radio talk show hosts (I know, fossils today) who begged the Clinton Administration to send reps onto their programs to rebut some of the more egregious horseshit. The Establishment Democrats, however, were all above that. And for their lack of interest, they were repaid with 1994 and the impeachment of 1998, and the Bush administration (not to mention the purge of all six and a half non-right-wing talk show hosts!).
You really gonna tell me that in the '80's or '90's, some firebrand populist of the Left, who landed in the Heartland and yelled to the people, "The corporate fat cat sons of bitches are selling your jobs overseas!!" wouldn't have made a better connection to the emotions of the lumpen, than some rich, morbidly obese drug addict with a purdy mouth, intoning the Catechism from Palm Beach?
"Conservatism" (fraudulent term) won the battle for hearts and minds in this country, because there were no damned troops on the other side! So maybe you could quell the sarcasm for five minutes, and stop pissing on the first overdue shoots of genuine Left populism in 30+ years, and let 'em grow, already?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
December 30, 2009 7:38 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
As I'm sure NCStrawman has noted in the past, Rasmussen polls are notoriously unreliable and rightwing-biased... except when NCStrawman wants to use them to "prove" a point or bash progressives. And the kabuki continues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
i said GOOD DAY sir
December 29, 2009 12:03 PM
Don't let the door hit you, Ben, cuz you're not getting a dime from me. Addition by subtraction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
December 29, 2009 12:03 PM
While it's not an immediate threat to Ben Nelson, perhaps it's a significant lesson to the Democrats defending marginal districts and states in 2010. Blanche Lincoln, perhaps.
The vote on the final bill out of the conference committee is still to come and the 2010 vote is about ten months away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
baltimore
December 29, 2009 12:09 PM
ben need not worry, certainly his friends in the insurance biz will find him a high-paying job or sinecure. payment for his good services to their cause....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 29, 2009 12:41 PM
It all comes down to that war on education. People are just plain stupid.
That being said, I don't see health insurance welfare helping him with the voters in 2012. It will help him get campaign contributions and provided the mandate doesn't kick in until 2014, it will probably be no harm no foul. Nobody will realize any benefit and it will be largely forgotten by 2012. The problems will arise in 2014 and they won't be pretty.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 29, 2009 4:13 PM in reply to Michael A
The ban on cancelling people's insurance after they get sick kicks in immediately. The subsidized high risk pool for people who can't get insurance because of preexisting conditions pending the implementation of the full law will be created within a year of passage.
The implementation delay currently in both bills is budget rule manipulating stupidity that will, as you observe, have a serious political downside if it's not fixed in conference, but if we go around saying people will see no benefit for years when that's not really true, we do the Republicans job for them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ttarleton
December 29, 2009 12:44 PM
I'm sure it's true that Nelson is down in the polls in Nebraska, but please bear in mind that this is a RASMUSSEN poll. In other words, the results are most probably wildly inaccurate (in a direction that favors conservatives).
Rasmussens's poll results have proven to be considerably out of step with the other major polling organizations, going back at least to last year's presidential race. Look at the most recent poll tracker results posted on the TPMDC homepage:
Obama's approval/disapproval numbers:
RASMUSSEN - Disapprove 53.0%, Approve 46.0%
GALLUP - Approve 51.0%, Disapprove 43.0%
If you watch these numbers over time, you will find this pattern to be consistent. Rasmussen's approval numbers for Obama are always considerably lower than most every other poll.
Who are you going to believe? Was Rasmussen right in last year's election? Are they right now, and all the other polls wrong? For my part, I completely ignore Rasmussen's numbers, and I fail to see why TPM even bothers to post them as part of their poll tracker. Rasmussen is bullshit!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 29, 2009 12:47 PM in reply to ttarleton
I just hope repukes keep believing ratsmussen. Gives them a false sense of security and encourages them to continue acting like utter buffoons. Everyone else can just disregard ratsmussen as it has zero credibility.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
December 29, 2009 2:03 PM in reply to ttarleton
"Was Rasmussen right in last year's election?"
Uh, yes, actually. The popular vote in Rasmussen's final pre-election poll was pretty close to what Rasmussen predicted; less than one percentage point of difference for both candidates.
Their numbers indicated 52% for Obama and 46% for McCain. The national popular vote was 52.9% for Obama and 45.7% for McCain.
On a state-by-state basis, Rasmussen was only wrong in three states: Florida, Indiana and North Carolina. While Obama did ultimately carry all three of these, even if McCain did carry them, Obama would still have won.
The two states that you can't call from Rasmussen's polling are Ohio and Missouri, in which Rasmussen predicted a dead heat. The former ultimately went to Obama and the latter to McCain. Even if McCain got both of these, he still wouldn't have won. That was the outcome.
Rasmusssen tends to have slightly different results compared to other pollsters, but that doesn't mean their numbers are biased. Question wording really comes into play. Progressives like to dis Rasmussen because they don't like the numbers without knowing anything about statistics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zephyrus
December 29, 2009 3:18 PM in reply to Icon
The question is not how right Rasmussen was the day before the election. The question is how right Rasmussen was... well, in this case, 3 years before the election.
Something to remember: Rasmussen had McCain statistically tied with Obama a week before the election. A month beforehand it had McCain leading Obama by 6 points.
They have this entire cute setup where they put out crazy numbers throughout the year to the benefit of Republicans, and then the day before the election jigger with their likely voter model to get an accurate reading.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ttarleton
December 29, 2009 3:28 PM in reply to Zephyrus
Thank you Zephyrus! I knew Rasmussen was putting out numbers that smelled rotten during the 2008 presidential polling, I just couldn't remember the specifics of the chicanery.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
December 29, 2009 3:44 PM in reply to Zephyrus
The numbers three years before the election matter if the election were being held then, but so much i likely to change in the interim that they're essentially meaningless.
If the 2010 congressional election were held three months ago, Republicans might have retaken the House. But they weren't; they will be held next November. The probability of Republicans gaining control of the House then is considerably less, because the numbers that predict the oucome are changing daily, and currently those changes seem to favor the Dems retaining control (an effect that will be more pronounced in a year from now).
Further, not all of the numbers I referenced were the day before the election. Some of them were as far back as September; Rasmussen didn't poll every state the day before the election.
Their likely voter model isn't really all that bad. The major statistician wonks (e.g. Nate Silver, Larry Sabato) seem to like Rasmussen. I'm an economist, not a statistician, but I defer to their greater knowledge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ttarleton
December 29, 2009 3:20 PM in reply to Icon
OK, you and some commenters on my Cafe post have schooled me, thank you - Rasmussen was right, at least at the end, in last year's election. But I stand by my comments in regard to Rasmussen's Obama approval/disapproval numbers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
December 29, 2009 3:48 PM in reply to ttarleton
It's important to remember that question wording is a really big part of it. Rasmussen doesn't always word their questions the same way as other pollsters.
As far as I can tell, Gallup for example asks people just whether they approve or disapprove, whereas Rasmussen gives people the choice of "slightly" approving or disapproving. If you're on the fence, it's probably easier to say you 'slightly' disapprove than to say you 'disapprove'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
artgurrl
December 29, 2009 4:00 PM in reply to Icon
Those numbers for the last election occurred before Rasmussen changed their polling practices.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
December 29, 2009 4:19 PM in reply to artgurrl
What change are you referring to? I'm not aware they broadly changed their methodology after the election last year, although I could be wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
December 29, 2009 4:42 PM in reply to ttarleton
Rasmussen is a scam. For four years, he provides Fox "News" and the right with "evidnece" that the country marches to their drummers. He is cited with great regulaity, and he is nearly always wildly outlying (or, just plain "lying").
Then, in the last weeks before a successful presidential election, he hops on board the reality train, and uses his last-minute stats henceforth as evidence that, see? He's legit!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ThomasEN
December 29, 2009 12:49 PM
worth noting that Nebraska can split their electoral vote and though Nebraska is deep red, the Omaha electoral vote went to Obama.
also, the ad buy against him was huge, 3 commercials an hour by the opponents and people are sick of them. To say nothing of the insurance company campaign donations he'll get for working in the tax cuts.
don't get me wrong, I'm not wild about him, but I think his job is safe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ethan
December 29, 2009 7:40 PM in reply to ThomasEN
That's my thinking too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
December 29, 2009 12:54 PM
The problem with polling this so far out is that it's unlikely to give any viable indication of what's going to happen. There's so much liable to change in the interim that the numbers have no predictive merit.
Nelson is a lot safer than the numbers would predict. Public opinion on HCR will be a lot different in 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 29, 2009 1:26 PM
Wow! A "shocking" Rasmussen poll whose results miraculously match up with Republican messaging! Who could have guessed?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 29, 2009 1:33 PM
he won't be on the ballot again until 2012
Yawn.
Of course primaries are where people select candidates from their party that best represents them. Why people oppose people being active in pimaries is beyond me. Establishment/Incumbent lovers. How dare people put their own representation above party!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 29, 2009 4:29 PM in reply to Indie Pro
All we're asking for is a bare acknowledgment of how political realities vary from state to state and district to district and a modicum of tactical and strategic vision in lieu of blindly charging into the machine guns armed only with ideological purity. Lieberman can be taken down and replaced by a better Democrat. Bayh might be, though he seems to be adjusting to the reality that there is no centrist coalition for him to be king of any more and falling into line. Arlen, hell, he's turning into one of the better Democrats in the Senate, whether through fear of Sestak or because of some sort of conversion experience is irrelevant to me. But, whatever, either of them has a decent shot at beating Toomey if the primary isn't too big a blood bath.
Nelson, Landrieu and Lincoln, however, are about the best Democrats we can hope for from their states. I spit on the ground at the mention of any of their names, but the facts are as they are. Trying to topple Democrats with constituiencies as wingnutty as theirs is nothing more or less than abetting their replacement by a Republican, and, most likely a seriously crazy one.
As long as you're clear about the strong likelihood of that outcome and you're willing to own the consequences--even if only to say we're better off with an open enemy than a one that pretends to be our friend--have at it. What's vexing is the magical thinking about how the scales will suddenly fall from the eyes of the beknighted voters of the state of Bumfuck if a real progressive is nominated.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 29, 2009 4:54 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
so party above personal representation. Okay. Is that enough, or do you really want party before people selecting who they think best represents them? I think that is really what you want.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 29, 2009 5:21 PM in reply to Indie Pro
In other words, magical thinking it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 29, 2009 5:25 PM in reply to Indie Pro
In other words, maigcal thinking for the win, Alex.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 29, 2009 5:27 PM in reply to brewmn61
Aaargh. Snark fail. Why aren't comments appearing after initially being posted anymore?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 29, 2009 5:55 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I repeat: as long as you're honest, with yourself and with others, about the strong likelihood that primarying someone who is bad will result in the election of someone even worse, and you're willing to own that outcome, even if only on the grounds that an open enemy is better than one who pretends to be your friend, have at it.
What infuriates me off about Hamsher and, to a lesser extent, some of the Kossites (though not Kos himself) is a) the constant substitution of magical thinking for an actual plan for what happens after they win the primary and, b) the concommicant refusal to take any responsibility for the outcome.
It's not raw partisanship. I just have this crazy idea that not making things worse is at least as important as trying to make them better. The underlying assumption of that belief, of course, is that things aren't already as bad as they can be, which some may debate, but if I learned anything from the Bush years, it's that things can always get worse, or turn out to be worse, than you already thought they were.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
December 30, 2009 11:36 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
In case you're still reading this thread, Steve, I'm amazed at the blind spot that causes you to believe that progressivism in a "red state" is "magical thinking".
If I walk into Nebraska and run in a primary as a firebrand Leftie, yeah, I ain't gonna win. And if I do, the Republican opponent in the general will indeed turn me into a McGovern cartoon.
Now, what have we learned, here? Oh, I know: DON'T LET THE RIGHT'S BRANDING DEFINE YOU!
Specifically put, I may have intentions of getting elected and holding banks and corporations responsible; working for real universal health care, a.k.a., single-payer, etc. But if I'm going to run in a state where the numbnuts actually believe that Ben Nelson has worked tirelessly for them, for years, then I'd goddamned well better have an advertising slogan that hasn't already been stepped-on by the oppo; I'd get about as far calling myself a "progressive", as I would a "liberal". Frank Luntz rules our world, ya know.
So, fine. I will pound words like "the people", "crusader", "fairness", "small business"... "your family and mine"... I will become the anti-Luntz. If I do this correctly, nobody in the State Of Numbnuts can accuse me of being something they all just know is horrible and un-American ("liberal", "Progressive", etc.).
I am not a politician. Yet, even a stupid armchair blogger commenter like Moi can figure this shit out. Therefore, I tend to believe it's not actually being done in these so-called "red states", less because it wouldn't work, than because there are no progressives who can raise enough cash from sociopathic corporate interests, in order to run for high office.
And that, Steve, has nothing to do with the "magical thinking" that makes a wild-eyed Commie like me think that the average, unemployed schmuck who's losing his house in Nebraska might just want to have a little chat with me about how it really goes down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WCG
December 29, 2009 1:35 PM
As a Nebraskan, I always grit my teeth and vote for Ben Nelson, just because the alternative would be even worse. But I don't know if I can keep doing that. Really, I don't.
Nelson is just so worthless! He supports the worst policies of the Republicans (I think he was Bush's biggest backer among the Democrats), and when he supports the Democrats, it's often where I don't. Or he heads straight for the pork-barrel, which gives all Dems a bad name, while watering down anything good in Senate bills.
ThomasEN is right, BTW, about the constant commercials. In recent months, that's all you see on TV here, just one political commercial about health care after another - the vast majority of them anti-reform. The local TV stations must be loving all this money flowing in!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
December 29, 2009 4:41 PM in reply to WCG
I'm in Idaho. Minnick presents a similar question. For me, the solution boils down to this: as long as Minnick holds the seat there is zero chance that a better politician will come up through the party ranks. His existence ensures that things will never get any better for Idahoans than they are today. For me that's far more important than if an honest primary challenger would be more likely to win a specific election contest. Winning with someone who sucks is a Pyrrhic victory at best.
I'm not in Nebraska so I don't know if this would apply to Nelson, or if there is some other redeeming issue that might make you want to keep him.
I'm not a democrat, but I elected them on purpose. As far as I'm concerned someone who calls themselves a democrat and then refuses to act like one in office is a fucking liar. Better to have a republican who's at least honest about their real beliefs than to support a clear opportunist just because they slap a "D" on their chest. If being a democrat doesn't actually mean anything, why on earth should independents continue to vote for them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
December 29, 2009 5:28 PM in reply to kgb999
"Better to have a republican who's at least honest about their real beliefs than to support a clear opportunist just because they slap a "D" on their chest."
Why?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
howie
December 29, 2009 2:56 PM
I know this isn't the true definition of a push poll...but this is a push poll.
Rasmussen seems to poll things to try to effect outcomes. Conservadems best not vote their party or they will be defeated in their next election.
Spread the word!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
December 29, 2009 7:19 PM
I'm surprised TPM presents this poll so credulously. The first question is about the theoretical Heineman-Nelson matchup in 2012. Then the survey asks two questions about Nelson's role in health care, and than a final massive hypothetical which asks if they would change their vote if Nelson voted against healthcare.
This really does match the methods of a push-poll- using damaging, loaded questions early in the poll to influence voter opinion. The most obvious point is that Gov. Heineman is much more popular than Nelson. Fortunately for Nelson. Heineman's term office is up in 2010 but Nelson's is not for 2012. So for Heineman to run for Senate he would either have to not run for re-election in 2010 so he could get ready for 2012 or he would have to quit his governorship halfway through. Usually candidates claim that they will serve their whole term and not run for other (I can't say higher in this case)office. Heineman would have to win re-election and then immediately turn around and start running for Senate.
It's true that Heineman would be term limited out of the governorship after 2014, so if he wants to spend another 20 years in politics he could try making the jump into the Senate. I don't know enough about Heineman to say if he would want to make the jump from being the popular governor of solidly Republican Nebraska to junior most member of the minority (probably) party in Senate. It's not unthinkable, but this whole poll is wildly speculative.
If 2012 is a banner year for Republicans than Ben Nelson is in trouble no matter what.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
December 29, 2009 7:23 PM
I'm surprised TPM presents this poll so credulously. The first question is about the theoretical Heineman-Nelson matchup in 2012. Then the survey asks two questions about Nelson's role in health care, and than a final massive hypothetical which asks if they would change their vote if Nelson voted against healthcare.
This really does match the methods of a push-poll- using damaging, loaded questions early in the poll to influence voter opinion. The most obvious point is that Gov. Heineman is much more popular than Nelson. Fortunately for Nelson. Heineman's term office is up in 2010 but Nelson's is not for 2012. So for Heineman to run for Senate he would either have to not run for re-election in 2010 so he could get ready for 2012 or he would have to quit his governorship halfway through. Usually candidates claim that they will serve their whole term and not run for other (I can't say higher in this case)office. Heineman would have to win re-election and then immediately turn around and start running for Senate.
It's true that Heineman would be term limited out of the governorship after 2014, so if he wants to spend another 20 years in politics he could try making the jump into the Senate. I don't know enough about Heineman to say if he would want to make the jump from being the popular governor of solidly Republican Nebraska to junior most member of the minority (probably) party in Senate. It's not unthinkable, but this whole poll is wildly speculative.
If 2012 is a banner year for Republicans than Ben Nelson is in trouble no matter what.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?