Votes for Clean Energy, Climate Bill Did NOT Defeat Democrats

On health care... (0.00 / 0)

According to the New York Times, when it comes to health care reform, "Among 22 [Democrats] who provided crucial yes votes from particularly risky districts, 19 ended up losing on Tuesday." However, "even the Democrats who bucked the White House and their party's leadership by voting against the measure gained little protection. Of the 30 Democrats who opposed the final bill and then stood for re-election, 17 lost anyway."  In sum, "among 49 Democratic incumbents who lost on Tuesday, 32 had voted for the health care law and 17 against it."

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:52:24 AM UTC

Maybe The Anti-Incumbent Tact Got Boucher (0.00 / 0)

Nate Silver discussed incumbency as one of the 5 reasons the Republicans might do well. Even Ike Skelton was swept out of office in Missouri. He'd never won less than 62% of the vote in 34 years.

The Republicans played the cards as they were dealt by district. And based upon the district, they laid the card or cards that trumped. This was a thumping with many fathers on the GOP side, while credit for the Democratic performance remains an orphan.

---

by: Dan Sullivan @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:06:54 AM UTC

The Nate Silver link: (0.00 / 0)

here

---

by: Dan Sullivan @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:10:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe because Boucher ran away from his accomplishments? (0.00 / 0)

Thus, Boucher took zero credit for his work on clean energy and climate legislation, also ran away from health care reform and the president.  Yeah, that really worked well. The point is, the other guy's gonna attack you regardless, so you might as well own up to/take credit for what you did. Nye and Boucher didn't do that, and they both lost. Sad, but kind of predictable when you think about it...

P.S. By the way, it's "tack" not "tact."  A common mistake on the intertubes, along with "road to hoe" (should be "row to hoe") and "it's" instead of "its" for possessive.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:10:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tom Davis Agrees With You (0.00 / 0)

as do I. But for Boucher, Skelton, and many others (many of whom tried to use tact, like I, and failed) incumbency was an albatross.

---

by: Dan Sullivan @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:20:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What they were saying in southern VA (0.00 / 0)

Was listening to local reporters discuss Boucher's loss on the radio. They didn't mention the clean energy & climate bill at all. The first thing they mentioned was the $1.2 million in outside special interest spending against Boucher. The second thing they mentioned was Boucher's inability to effectively respond to those attacks, which helped them stick. The third thing they mentioned was, hello, it's an extremely conservative district & a Dem couldn't hold that seat forever.  

Read more at TheGreenMiles.com and follow me on Twitter

---

by: TheGreenMiles @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 12:37:39 PM UTC

One thing.... (0.00 / 0)

I like the analysis but one thing that this doesn't take into account (which is impossible to really measure) is the district from where these votes came from. Jim Moran and Bobby Scott have little to fear with their votes apart from a challenge from the left whereas Glenn Nye, Tom Perriello and Gerry Connolly were freshmen elected from "swing" districts.

I think what these last 2 years have hopefully taught the Administration is that they need to package incremental reforms and not go for the big bill. Going for incremental progress that builds to something is going to make opposing it just about impossible. How would the GOP message against a bill designed to increase energy efficiency in public schools? I know they'll think of something but that is where you defend yourself. Now that Orange is leading that House that will be harder if not impossible to do but never defending what they did and developing a clear and cohesive message is what sank them. I guarantee you that if Tom Perriello were in Connolly's district that the outcome would have been easily known on Tuesday and he would have won by several percent. Tom was able to develop a clear message of what he did and why he did it and while he lost he outperformed the national vote average (GOP won by about 6% nationwide) in a conservative leaning district. If only more were like him and at least defended what they did and developed a message our losses would have been significantly less.  

---

by: Cool_Arrow @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 14:08:33 PM UTC

Going for the big bill is okay, as long as you go for it (0.00 / 0)

This should be the lesson learned from the Republicans every time they take Congress. Hey, even when they don't take Congress, if they keep the House, they got a mandate, and they begin passing big bill immediately.

Think about the 2005 bankruptcy laws. The bill made it harder for people to declare bankruptcy but easier for corporations to do so, happening right before the real estate market was going to melt.

Did the GOP waiting a full year to pass this baby? Did it keep trying to find common ground from the Democrats? No.  

---

by: Hugo Estrada @ Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 10:40:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is a completely skewed statistic (0.00 / 0)

The people who votes yes had less to fear in the first place...

---

by: Venu @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 21:00:08 PM UTC

Apparently not. (0.00 / 0)

The election results completely contradict that hypothesis.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 21:08:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also see (0.00 / 0)

this statistical analysis.


Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 21:21:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Email from NRDC president Frances Beineke (0.00 / 0)

American voters made plain their anger on Tuesday and the resulting tsunami swept away legions of incumbents on Capitol Hill. Some of the victims were long-time friends of the environment and they will be sorely missed.

But members of the new House majority would be making a huge mistake -- a potentially fatal mistake -- if they think this cresting wave of economic ire gives them a mandate to roll back America's environmental safeguards, as some have been threatening.

For proof, look no further than Election Day results. Most representatives who supported the House clean energy bill won their races. In California, voters soundly thrashed Proposition 23, an industry-backed measure that would have derailed the state's visionary global warming law.

Across the country, polls reveal an America more committed than ever to a clean energy path. Nearly 90 percent of us want more renewable energy from our utilities. Nearly 80 percent of us want measures that will give us better gas mileage in our cars and more energy savings in our homes and offices.

Politicians ignore these numbers at their peril. That's why, come January, NRDC will be working hard to build a new bipartisan coalition in Congress that can hammer out an agreement on renewables and other key aspects of a clean energy future.

But, make no mistake, if the new House majority is foolish enough to thwart those efforts and launch direct attacks on environmental laws and agencies -- as some of them are promising -- then we will give them the fight of their lives. There seems to be something about the headiness of victory and newfound power that makes anti-environmentalists overreach.

We've seen this movie before. In 1994, Newt Gingrich swept to power in the House, brandishing a "Contract with America" that never mentioned the word environment. But once installed, the new majority claimed a mandate for undoing 25 years of environmental protections.

NRDC and our allies fought back hard by mobilizing an enraged public; more than one million Americans wrote or phoned Congress in protest. In the end, the House leadership gambled everything -- their budget, their power, their agenda -- on a radical assault on nature. They lost, and discovered the hard way that protecting the environment is a bedrock American value.

I can't tell you if the new House leadership will launch as broad and coordinated an assault as Newt Gingrich did. But I do know that more than one battle will soon be joined.

Powerful members of the new majority have signaled their intent to unshackle polluters from the Clean Air Act ... strip wolves of their endangered species protection ... industrialize the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge . . . slash budgets for clean energy programs ... and hold hearings questioning the science behind global warming.

I promise you that NRDC will be fully prepared.

We will bring everything to bear -- the grassroots power of 1.3 million Members and online activists like you, the advocacy clout of our legal and scientific teams, and the unmatched effectiveness of our rapid response operation -- to stave off any and all legislative attacks on our natural heritage and environmental laws.

But playing defense is simply not enough. If we are to avoid the most catastrophic outcomes of an overheating planet, we've got to start cutting global warming pollution soon.

That's why NRDC will also be advocating in federal agencies, fighting in the courts, partnering with the states and innovating through the marketplace to drive America's long overdue transition to a clean energy economy. That is our planet's last best hope for a sustainable future -- and we are going to get there with Congress or without Congress.

I'm counting on you to stay the course with NRDC. We need your idealism. We need your activism. We need your support. If we have all of those, we are going to prevail.

Sincerely,

Frances Beinecke
President
Natural Resources Defense Council

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 21:40:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also see (0.00 / 0)

this analysis:

But what is interesting is that the effects of individual votes this year are not particularly strong. This is in stark contrast to 1994. This year a vote for the stimulus had no significant effect on an incumbents' vote share (not entirely surprising, given that almost everyone voted for it). Cap-and-trade cost an incumbent a point, but we're only about 63 percent sure of that. And a vote for the health care bill only cost an incumbent Democrat in a swing- or Republican-leaning district 1.3 points (we're 73 percent sure of that). Again, these types of votes cost an incumbent about 4 points in 1994, and were strongly significant.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 02:32:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good Point - Broaden it (0.00 / 0)

How many "blue dog" Dems lost vice "progressive" Dems? Blue Dogs forcing compromise on everything, watering down everything made it simple, vote for a real bagger or a faux-bagger (blue dog). In other words, fight for your convictions vice always always compromise and stop being afraid.

---

by: Mike1987 @ Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 22:52:45 PM UTC