Why Democrats Who Voted No On ObamaCare May Still Lose

IBD's Capital Hill ^ | 3/29/2010 | David Hogberg

[Slyscribe]

Two new polls out from Rasmussen today suggest that even Democrats who voted against health care reform are in serious danger of losing their seats. The first shows that 54% of respondents favor repealing ObamaCare, essentially unchanged from last week.

The second shows that Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., now leads one of her potential Republican challengers, Secretary of State Chris Nelson, by only 44%-42%. In February, she led 45%-38%. Herseth Sandlin, co-chair of the Blue Dogs, a group of more moderate Democrats, voted against the health care bill both in November and in March, and was outspoken against the “Slaughter solution”, dubbing it “poison.”

Her lackluster numbers can be linked to voters’ preference for repealing ObamaCare, even though she voted against it.

[Vigilanteman]

Only about one-third of the so-called Blue Dog Democrats are genuinely moderate. This are people like David Boren of Oklahoma, Colin Peterson of Minnesota, Gene Taylor of Mississippi and possibly others.

Most of the rest are either wobbly or wear the Blue Dog fig leaf to get elected in a conservative district.

[DallasDeb]

In Stupak’s side, he sold the country out for an airport

Worse, he sold dead babies for an airport.

[Red Badger]

They will pay the price of the company they keep.............

[onyx]

You’re right and the trouble with the three you mentioned is that they vote for the democrat speaker.

[mwl8787]

RINOs were proven trustworthy on health care, even in the midst of immense hostility from the Democratic machine and its MSM handmaidens.

By contrast, there is no such thing as a Blue Dog or conservative RAT.

If we have learned anything this last year, it is that Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown are infinitely more reliable than a Bart Stupak or Ben Nelson.

A RAT is a RAT and is always a RAT.

[Frantzie]

McCain passed McCain-Feingold which gave the Democrats Congress in 2006/2008 plus the 0 in 2008.

They are pushing a new law based on a very recent case to keep something like McCain-Feingold in place. McCain gave your contry to the marxists.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: "AMERICANS want nothing to do with anything that even smells like loss of liberty."

Actual Headline.

GOP Bares New Platform for 1950
Party Charges Truman With Promotion of Socialism in America

"The Republican Party opened its 1950 campaign tonight with a new platform charging the Truman Administration with promoting socialism in America and allowing 'Communists and fellow travelers' to infiltrate the government."

It's from what has to be the one-millionth-attack-Joe-McCarthy book The Age of Anxiety: McCarthyism to Terrorism, by Haynes Bonner Johnson (2005)

Mr. Johnson, not exactly impartial as I remember the McNeil-Lehrer PBS show, continued, "There it was. All that was lacking was someone like McCarthy to light a bonfire and elevate campaign rhetoric into a movement that would ruin lives, discredit the United States, and affect the country for years to come."

Change Truman to Obama and then all that's lacking are the cheap, stereotypical typings of modern "journalists" such as words like racist, xenophobic, homophobic, ignorant, Bible-and-gun-clinging, and teabaggers. Word processors have PF keys for that.

I saw this movie when it was released 60 years ago. It ain't pretty.

But the adults did not have modern talk radio and the Internet.

Some major cities had conservative newspapers to counter the liberal ones. None in Kentucky that I recall where I grew up in the "Dark and Bloody Ground." Required Disclaimer: I did not mean anything by "Dark and Bloody Ground", it's just an interesting fact of precolonial Kentucky history. Required: Signed this date March 29, 2010 12:54PM. Required: Witnesses . . . .

[thethirddegree]

Throw out all the crooks and start over.

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

Perhaps they should have fought harder and more publicly. Perhaps they should have taken a visible and principled stand and vigorously recruited wavering dems to vote “no”. Perhaps they would have endeared themselves to their constituents.

[nickcarraway]

Even if the Republicans won every single Congressional district, what are the chances they would even try to repeal this? My guess is the chances are between 0% and 0.1%.

[Vigilanteman]

Which is, as much as I hate to say it, why even a RINO is generally a better choice than a Blue Dog Dem. Their voting records may be virtually identical in that they both at least have the sense to understand a healthy private sector is necessary to generate sufficient tax revenues for the nanny state. However, the RINO doesn't vote in corrupt leadership.

There was a time in my life that I actually preferred an honorable Blue Dog moderate to a RINO. Not anymore.

[grumpygresh]

Good situation for Republicans. 0bamacare was a dead end ally for the Dims. Those that voted yes in red districts will be the first to go. The faux “pro-life” that voted with Rep Stupid will feels the deserved wrath of the real pro-life movement. Those that voted no both times in red districts have a chance, but will face loony primary challenges from the leftists and a demoralized leftist base if they survive the primary.
50 seats are possible or more.

[DesertSapper]

The Dems who had the brains and intestinal fortitude to vote NO on 0bamacare should extend that positive streak and leave the Democrat Party.

FReeper's must realize that we have to do everything we can to ensure every Dem is removed from office. With that being our primary focus, we then must do the same with CINOs and RINOs. This order of operations is critical. To get rid of a Dem with a RINO is acceptable in some circumstances (see Scott Brown) but only as a last resort.

[mwl8787]

You are wrong. Given the opportunity to repeal, the GOP would be delighted to have Obama’s veto of a repeal heading into the 2012 presidential race.

This is a great issue for both 2010 and 2012, especially with seniors, who vote disproportionately in high numbers.

[Cheetahcat]

They are still Democrats and Have to go!

[Hardastarboard]

You can bet that I’m going to give every dime I can afford to Bart Stupak’s opponent in both the primary and in the general, if he survives.

[Lancey Howard]

Those scumbag Democrats SHOULD lose. Most of them only voted “no” because they were given permission to do so by San Fransicko Nancy. Plus, getting rid of as many scumbags as possible helps the cause of getting rid of the head communist scumbag, Nancy Pelosi.

[onyx]

We’re on the same page. The vote for the speaker is the deciding facotr.

[adorno]

Why Democrats Who Voted No On ObamaCare May Still Lose

There used to be a time when I looked at "moderate democrats" and "blue dogs" as being the "somewhat good guys" in the ranks of democrats. But, not anymore. Not when they are still democrats who, if they don't vote for a bill that increases the power of government today, they will vote on another bill that will do so the next time. Stupak had us fooled for about a year and he always wanted to vote for government takeover of health care; and there are too many others like him. Thus, "trust but verify" doesn't apply here. When it comes to democrats it's "don't ever trust and always verify".

Even if there actually are "moderate" democrats who might deserve a "second look", we should not take the chance of re-electing a single one of them. If we are to repeal and "re-do" the health care bill, then we need as many true conservatives as we can get elected. If we can't get true conservatives, perhaps we can still do the job with some RINOs replacing the "moderate" or "blue dog" democrats. While we can get busy replacing the hard-left and progressives and liberals, we can't allow the moderate or blue dogs to stay in power. We need to target every single "democrat" seat there is and try very hard to retain what we already have. A "(D)" behind any seat in congress is a potential vote against what made America great.

[mad_as_he$$]

I saw somewhere 52% of Americans want their Congresscritter out no matter what party or how “good” they viewed them.