Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Fun Facts about House Democrats Voting 'No' on the Health Care Bill

Bookmark and Share

Years of service in U.S. House, district competitiveness, and district vote for McCain in '08 shaped Democratic votes; percentage of uninsured constituents in district had no impact

While much of the focus over the past week regarding whether or not Nancy Pelosi could muster enough votes to get the health care bill through the U.S. House was on whether or not anti-abortion Democrats would flip back and join their caucus, there were other more significant 'tells' that determined the ultimate shape of the 'yeas and nays' on the Democratic side of the aisle Sunday night.

A Smart Politics analysis of the 253 votes cast by Democrats Sunday night on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act finds that Democrats with fewer years of service in the U.S. House, those representing more competitive districts with smaller margins of victory in 2008, and those representing districts carried by John McCain were much more likely to vote against the bill.

1. Experience. Democrats voting for the bill who are running for public office in 2010 have served 50 percent longer in the House than those voting against it.
· The 34 Democrats who voted against the bill have averaged 8.5 years of service in the U.S. House, compared to 12.0 years for those who voted for the bill.
· After excluding from analysis the nine Democrats who are retiring from public office altogether after 2010, the average length of service for those voting against the bill was 8.0 years, with 12.0 years still the average length for those voting 'yes.'

2. District Competitiveness. Democrats running for reelection in 2010 who voted against the bill represent districts that are 10 points more competitive than those who voted for the bill.
· The average margin of victory in 2008 of the 34 Democrats who opposed the measure was 36.7 points, compared to 45.3 points for those who cast their vote in support of the bill.
· Upon excluding from analysis those 15 Democrats who will not be running for reelection in their respective districts this November, the margin increases to 10 points: a 33.4-point average margin of victory for the Democrats voting against, and a 43.4-point average margin of victory for those in favor of the legislation.
· Of the 238 Democrats slated to run for reelection in 2010, the average district competitiveness rank for those voting against the bill was #152, compared to #241 for those voting in favor of it.

3. McCain Districts. Democratic members of the U.S. House who represent districts carried by Republican John McCain in the 2008 presidential election were 14.5 times more likely to vote against the bill than those representing districts carried by Barack Obama.
· Democrats representing 'McCain districts' voted 26 to 20 in opposition to the bill, or 56.5 percent against the measure. (Note: two additional McCain districts once held by Democrats, NY-29 and PA-12, are currently vacant).
· Democrats representing 'Obama districts' voted 199 to 8 in favor of the bill, or just 3.9 percent against the legislation.

One factor that seemingly had no relevance as to whether or not Democrats supported the measure was the percentage of constituents in a representative's district who did not have health insurance.
· The average percentage of constituents who did not have health insurance of the 34 Democrats voting against the health care bill: 17.0 percent.
· The average percentage of constituents who did not have health insurance of the 219 Democrats voting for the bill: 17.2 percent.

Democrat Dan Boren (OK-02) represents the largest constituency of the uninsured among those 34 Democrats who voted against the measure at 29.3 percent, followed by Harry Teague (NM-02, 25.0 percent), Chet Edwards (TX-17, 23.2 percent), Mike McIntyre (NC-07, 23.1 percent), and Gene Taylor (MS-04, 22.3 percent).

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: Bachmann, Kline, and Paulsen Respond to U.S. House Health Care Bill Passage
Next post: Is Bart Stupak's U.S. House Seat Vulnerable?

1 Comment


  • A poignant analysis and one that would seem overlooked in the media coverage of the vote. Despite the president's call to his own ranks "to be bold" and support the bill, most things political are about the triangulation between achieving meaningful outcomes and ensuring that the pilot light is burning strong enough to stay in office. Therefore one wonders-

    ...To what extent the Democrats privately reconciled that a number of "no" votes in its own membership will be necessary realities in order to consolidate...even fortify power in November.

    ...Whilst the legislation is not perfect and certainly compromised, it would also be interesting to know how many of the those voting "no" would have happily voted "yes" had there been less at risk by doing so.

    ...Finally, whilst a block Republican "no" vote was not a suprise, one wonders if any republicans were hesitant- even wavering- and what the disciplinary consequences would have been for voting "yes."

    Again this was a really good analysis.

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

    Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

    Political Crumbs

    Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

    Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


    Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

    Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting