However, history shows that when Democrats stand for middle class voters, they win elections. Franklin D. Roosevelt won four consecutive terms as president in the 1930s and 40s, despite entering during the Great Depression, which did not completely end until our entrance into World War II. A lot of this had to do with the public’s trust in the president that he was looking out for their interests against a Republican Party that looked out for big-business.

Wisconsin is a prime modern-day example of this. Republicans rode into office in 2010 with a message about economics and jobs. They quickly turned towards dismantling unions, a traditional protector of the middle class, despite the fact that they never even ran on it. The result: a historic six Republicans in the state senate faced recall elections. Two of them were defeated and the other four were all under 60% in traditionally Republican districts. Democrats moved from a 19-14 minority with little power to a 17-16 minority that will effectively stop radical legislation.

Rick Perlstein, author of the new book Nixonland, writes about how defending the social safety net helps Democrats to win elections:

…there’s also a story in Nixonland about how the Democratic Party wins, why it loses and the good things that happen when the party gets the formula right. I surely hope Obama did not miss it.

It concerns the two major axes upon which major national elections get fought. Sometimes they become battles over the cultural and social anxieties that ordinary Americans suffer. Other times they are showdowns about middle-class anxieties when the free market fails. Normally, in the former sort of election, Republicans win. In the latter, Democrats do—as we saw in 2008, when the tide turned after John McCain said “the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

I hope that the president learns a thing or two from Perlstein’s book. His move towards what he perceives as the political middle with incessant talk about deficit-cutting has hurt his standing among middle class voters. There is no doubt that the country faces long-term deficit issues, but the jobs picture is far more serious and urgent. President Obama should pivot towards jobs by unveiling a bold and detailed jobs plan while at the same time defending programs like Social Security and Medicare that the middle class rely on. Take it to the American people. Dare the Republicans in Congress to rebuff your plan. Not only would it be good politics, it would be good for the country to see real economic leadership. We need it.

California

Meg Whitman dumped over $150 million into the governor’s race this year, yet she trails Democrat and former governor Jerry Brown by double digits. She came out against employers that hired undocumented workers, but had a maid for ten years that was in the country illegally. This basically killed any chance she had of becoming governor.

In the Senate race, Democrat Barbara Boxer has consistently held a narrow lead over conservative Republican Carly Fiorina. A Republican has not won a Senate race in California since Pete Wilson in 1984. With polls moving towards Boxer in the final days, it is hard to see this 26 year old streak ending in 2010. As a result, Democratic House candidates can expect a bump from a strong top of the ballot.

This could help with races in California 11 and California 20 where polls show tight races for Representatives McNerney and Costa. Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, who finds herself in a tough fight in traditionally Republican Orange County, may also benefit. The only Republican that looks vulnerable is Dan Lungren of California 3 near Sacramento.

Connecticut

As I posted yesterday, Connecticut’s Senate seat currently held by retiring Democrat Chris Dodd is now strongly favored to remain in Democratic hands. The race has moved into a double-digit advantage for state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal over former WWE CEO Linda McMahon. Democrats are also favored to win the governor’s mansion, which is currently held by a Republican. Winning both of these races should boost Democratic Representatives Murphy and Himes.

New York

Andrew Cuomo is the overwhelming favorite to win Tuesday’s gubernatorial race against Tea Party candidate Carl Paladino, who suggested that he would “take out” a reporter on tape. His over-the-top style is likely to hurt Republicans down the ballot and possibly cost Republicans a pick-up of 2 or 3 House seats in the state. The two Senate races (one of them a special election for the seat formerly held by Hillary Clinton) are blowout races as well.

Republicans are certain to pick-up the seat of former Congressman Eric Massa, who resigned in disgrace last December. Democrat Scott Murphy of New York 20, John Hall of New York 19, Bill Owens of New York 23, and Michael Arcuri of New York 24 all find themselves in close races. They could benefit from strong top-of-the-ballot performance on the Democratic side.

Pennsylvania

Polls had Republican Senate candidate Pat Toomey up by double-digits not more than a couple weeks ago. Today, the two are virtually tied. While Toomey may yet win this statewide race, he will likely benefit most from a Republican surge in districts where the party is already the strongest. The fact that Democrat Joe Sestak has managed to close the gap means that Democrats in marginal districts around the Philly suburbs could see a boost as well.
Democrats are currently likely to lose at least two seats in Pennsylvania, districts 3 and 11, where incumbents trail by double digits. The Democrats most likely to benefit are ones in close races: Chris Carney of Pennsylvania 10, Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania 8, Mark Critz of Pennsylvania 12.

This is not to suggest that the top of the ballot will save all of these candidates or even benefit the Democratic Party universally across the country. There are some states where gubernatorial races may hurt Democrats (Arizona for instance) and the same for Senate races (Republican’s expected win will drag down House Democratic candidates in Indiana). It may, however, make the difference in close races where more high profile races for statewide office help House incumbents.

In other words, while Democrats will have to defend their vote in tough districts, nearly double the number of Republicans find themselves in similar situations. Worse yet for the GOP, there is evidence that support for the bill is significantly improving from where it was just a couple months ago when Democrats lost the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy.

President Obama’s approval rating on health care stood at 36-54 opposed in January (according to CBS) and was up to 41-51 by this past weekend before the vote took place. That’s a shift of 8 points in about a two month period and that is before the House even passed the bill. Undoubtedly, those numbers will continue to improve as the positive coverage from the bill’s passage continues. The president’s overall job approval is at 49-41 positive, an improvement from 46-41 in January.

What these numbers show is that the negative feelings towards this bill have peaked and the positive feelings are on the way up. As various aspects of the bill begin to be felt relatively quickly, such as kids being able to stay on their parent’s insurance plan until age 26 or the ban on pre-existing conditions, approval will continue to improve. Americans will realize that the Armageddon that Republicans literally said would take place after the bill passed was nothing more than scare tactics.

Not only are calls for repealing the bill ridiculously unrealistic (President Obama would veto any repeal), they also will ring hallow in November. Voters will question why the Republican Party is campaigning on a platform of repealing a ban on pre-existing conditions, filling the Medicare prescription doughnut hole, extending health insurance to 32 million Americans and reducing the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next two decades.

Let’s get back to those 32 House Republicans that voted against health care in districts that President Obama won. Below is a list of all of them:

Judy Biggert IL-13
Brian Bilbray CA-50
Mary Bono Mack CA-45
Ken Calvert CA-44
Dave Camp MI-4
John Campbell CA-48
Anh “Joseph” Cao LA-2
Michael Castle DE-AL
Charles Dent PA-15
David Dreier CA-26
Randy Forbes VA-4
Elton Gallegly CA-24
Jim Gerlach PA-6
Mark Kirk IL-10
Leonard Lance NJ-7
Tom Latham IA-4
Frank LoBiondo NJ-2
Daniel Lungren CA-3
Donald Manzullo IL-16
Thaddeus McCotter MI-11
Howard “Buck” McKeon CA-25
Erik Paulsen MN-3
Thomas Petri WI-6
David Reichert WA-8
Mike Rogers MI-8
Peter Roskam IL-6
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen FL-18
Paul Ryan WI-1
Lee Terry NE-2
Patrick Tiberi OH-12
Fred Upton MI-6
Frank Wolf VA-10
Bill Young FL-10

Two are running for the Senate, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Castle of Delaware. Both of those districts are favored to be won by Democrats. Representative Cao sits in a heavily Democratic New Orleans district and was only elected because the sitting member was a convicted felon. He voted for the House bill last November, but opposed it on Sunday. You can count him as a lame duck. Democrats are sure to win that seat back.

Go down the list and you can see some vulnerable names in Democratic or Democratic-trending districts: Peter Roskam and Judy Biggert in the Chicago suburbs, Jim Gerlach whose failed bid for governor has undoubtedly put him behind the game in his suburban Philadelphia district, Dan Lungren of California went from 62% support in the 2004 election to 49% in 2008.

With the right challengers facing each of these vulnerable Republicans, Democrats have a good chance at winning a few of these seats. The Republican takeover of Congress that conservatives are talking about seems a long way away when you add that to the Democrats which are already favored to pick up Mark Kirk’s seat in Illinois, Mike Castle’s in Delaware and Cao’s in Louisiana.

Despite phony concern coming from Republican leaders over the political impact that health care reform would have on Democrats, most evidence suggests that passing the bill enhances their chances of retaining majority status. The Democratic Party in Congress and President Obama have, without a single Republican vote, passed historic legislation to provide universal health care coverage for Americans. This goal has eluded every president since Tedd Roosevelt over 100 years ago. It’s an achievement that puts them in the history books and on safer political ground than they would have been if Republicans succeeded in killing the bill.

Let me be clear that I do not mean to say that Democrats will gain seats in the midterm election this fall. I believe that we will see modest losses in the House and a handful in the Senate. This falls well within the political history of the president’s party losing seats in a midterm election. Democrats won in places in 2008 that we normally wouldn’t have: conservative districts in Alabama and Idaho, among others. These are likely lost causes in 2010. But the talk of a takeover of both the House and Senate by Republicans is overblown. They will not win either chamber for a long time to come.

The bill extends insurance to 32 million Americans that previously did not have health insurance, reduces the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next two decades, bans the insurance industry practice of denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, and bans insurance companies from dropping coverage due to health. While Republicans have complained about a lack of bipartisanship, the bill includes over 200 Republican amendments.

It’s a serious charge, though, that I think we write off too quickly. While I would like to think that most Americans are reasonable enough to admit the simple reality that President Obama won the election in a landslide fashion and is indeed an American citizen, large numbers of Republicans come to different conclusions. Only 42 percent of Republicans polled by Research 2000 were found to believe that President Obama was a citizen of the United States. A majority were either convinced that he was not or were unsure.

So what motivates people to believe these fallacies? I believe that there are several causes, not the least of which is race. No one questioned a white president’s citizenship. The second is simply economics. There is a great deal of unease in our country today, largely derived from the economic anxieties that we live in, and rightfully so. But in these uncertain times people often come to conclusions that are, at best, flawed. They need someone to blame for all of their woes. President Obama is an easy target for them. He confirms their suspicions about a black man in the White House (emphasis on white).

I would rather not spend an entire post digressing about people’s (false) suspicions and conspiracy theories. I was invited to participate in a discussion about socialism in America on fire! Radio, an Internet radio program. You can listen to the full episode at this link or just click play on the player below. If you just want to hear what I have to say, you can skip to around 39:00 minutes, but the entire program is interesting:

What exactly is socialism, anyway? The standard dictionary definition of socialism is “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” If one wants to have an honest debate about government theory, properly defining terms is an important first step.

President Obama has never advocated for anything remotely close to a “command-and-control” system of government that socialism implies. Indeed, he has said throughout his political career and as president that he is a believer in the free market. At the same time, he has advocated for stronger protections of consumers through reforms of the financial system and health care system. One should not confuse government regulation with government control.

The second point that I would make is that the kinds of programs that have been derided as examples of “socialism”, such as the so-called public option, are already in existence for large portions of the population. Seniors benefit from “socialized medicine” in the form of Medicare. Veterans benefit from Veteran’s Affairs hospitals. The poor benefit from Medicaid. This is not a new concept in American politics. Protecting those that are vulnerable in society has been a priority among Democrats for decades.

Many of the complaints from some that have called President Obama a socialist were actually policies enacted during the Bush administration. TARP, otherwise known as the “bailout” for Wall Street, was a policy pushed by President Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson in September 2008. It was Secretary Paulson that asked Congress for near limitless control over hundreds of billions of dollars with no oversight to speak of. The “auto bailout” began under President Bush as well. $17.4 billion was given to GM and Chrysler during the last month of the Bush administration (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html).

The bottom line is that the country is not moving towards socialism. We live in a democracy where elections have consequences. Those upset with President Obama’s policies vocally opposed him before he was elected and they lost. We have a long tradition in this country of enacting programs that protect the poor and those in need, as well as regulate industries that abuse their power. Those policies will undoubtedly continue to be advanced by President Obama and Democrats in Congress, as well as future Democratic politicians.

Percentage wise, the vote was a lot closer in the House than it was in the Senate. The reason that the Senate got all of our attention was because of the Republican’s obstruction tactics, namely the filibuster, which requires 3/5 for passage instead of a majority vote. The President and Democratic leaders in the Senate appear to be ready to break the Republican’s filibuster attempts by passing a “fixed” version of the bill using a procedural device known as reconciliation.

It’s worth noting that Republicans attacking Democrats for using procedural shortcuts are themselves using procedural roadblocks. The filibuster is not in the Constitution and it is not even a law. It is simply a rule within the Senate which can be revised at the start of each Congress. Reconciliation, however, is in fact a law that was passed in the 1970s to reconcile budget issues. This is exactly what Democrats are likely to use it for as they will make changes to their original bill such as how to pay for it.

Going back to the House, though, it is unlikely that Speaker Pelosi currently has the votes to pass the Senate bill. There are two major hurdles that Democrats will need to face before President Obama can finally sign the bill. The first is that Democrats have literally lost three of their members from resignations and a death. Representative Jack Murtha recently passed away, Rep. Neil Abercrombie resigned to focus on his bid for governor of Hawaii and Robert Wexler resigned to head the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation. In other words, with these vacancies, the Democrats stand at 217-215, not enough to pass the bill. A majority of the chamber is 218. The sole Republican to vote with Democrats, Joseph Cao, has stated that he will likely vote against it the second time. That puts Democrats two votes short of a majority.

Is it possible for Nancy Pelosi to strong-arm Democrats that voted against the bill to vote for this revised bill? Certainly it is possible, she could threaten everything from fundraising to committee spots, but most of the Democrats that voted no are conservatives from mostly rural and/or Southern districts. She could make the argument that even Democrats that voted against the health care bill are in big trouble – perhaps because they are undercutting their base. In New Mexico, Harry Teague is trailing former Congressman Pearce by two points, even though he voted against the original bill. Would he be in a stronger position if he had voted to extend insurance benefits to the 45 million that currently live without it? Probably, especially in a relatively poor state like New Mexico.

The second problem for Democrats in the House is the issue of abortion. Bart Stupak of Michigan was successful in passing an amendment that would ban any insurance policies from covering an elective abortion in the bill’s insurance exchange, which would include policy choices from both private and public insurance plans. Democrats in the Senate sought to continue the ban on any public funds going towards abortion, but did not want to restrict private insurance plans in the exchange from offering it. It’s questionable whether pro-life Democrats will vote for the House bill if the Stupak amendment is not present and it’s equally questionable whether pro-choice Democrats will vote for a bill that includes it.

*Edit*

According to CNN, due to the vacancies, the majority in the House is now 217.

In the race to challenge incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer, Republicans have three candidates to choose from. Among them are Campbell, who switched from the governor’s race to the Senate race. It appears that was a good move as he currently leads his two rivals, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina and Teabag candidate Chuck DeVore. PPIC finds that Campbell has 27%, 16% for Fiorina, and a distant third for DeVore at 8%. Fiorina has positioned herself as a moderate alternative to the ultra-conservative DeVore, but has not gained much traction. While Fiorina was the early favorite, particularly of the establishment, that is clearly no longer the case.

The general election is shaping up to be a Democratic win, though, as President Obama enjoys a 61% approval rating in the state (34% disapproval). That’s considerably higher than much of the rest of the country and indicates that the party’s coalition is holding up – at least in the Golden State. Compare that to Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger whose approval rating is in George W. Bush territory – only 30% approve and 60% disapprove. Barbara Boxer has an approval rating just below 50% at 49% with 44% saying that they disapprove.

The other major poll out is of the Illinois primary for Senate, which will be held tomorrow. Democrat Alexi Giannoulias, the State Treasurer, leads the pack with 31% support, compared to 23% for Hoffman, and 23% for Jackson. The Republican Party is set to nominate the moderate Republican Congressman Mark Kirk, a Chicago suburbanite that voted for President Obama’s cap-and-trade bill but now says that he opposes it. While his support for those policies helped him in his Democratic-leaning Chicago suburb district, it is not popular at all with Republicans. That said, Kirk manages to poll better than both Hoffman and Jackson in this heavily Democratic state. Either of them winning the primary puts this seat once held by President Obama in serious jeopardy. The general election polls are below:

42% Giannoulias, 34% Kirk
37% Kirk, 36% Hoffman
38% Kirk, 36% Jackson

While Giannoulias leads Kirk by a healthy 8%, his two competitors are in extremely tight races with Kirk. Also decided on Tuesday will be the candidates to replace Mark Kirk in his suburban Chicago district, as well as competitive primaries for governor in both parties.

In order to win the House, however, Republicans would need to pick up 40 seats. That’s roughly double their current projected pickups. It is also more than Democrats managed to win in the 2006 elections or 2008 elections. In those years, with President Bush’s approval rating in the high 20s to low 30s, Democrats won 31 seats and 21 seats, respectively. President Obama’s approval rating stands around 50 percent, where it has been stabilizing for several months. Unless there is a significant drop in the president’s approval rating, it seems highly unlikely that Congress will switch hands.

The chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, agrees with me. In an interview with that same Fox Conservative Opinion Channel, Michael Steele shut the door on the possibility. Sean Hannity asked him if Republicans would win back the House. His response: “Not this year.” He went on to cast doubt on whether Republicans should even return to power. “If we do that, are we ready? I don’t know. That’s what I’m assessing and evaluating now.”

Before the final version of the bill was voted on 64 House Democrats joined 176 Republicans in adopting an amendment proposed by Representative Stupak of Michigan that would keep current law regarding public funding of abortion – which is prohibited. Further, it would prohibit private plans in the so-called “healthcare exchange” that would provide consumers with a number of different options for healthcare plans. The majority of Democrats contend that this amendment will result in dropped coverage for women seeking an abortion under existing private plans.

The Republican substitute amendment, which would only cover 3 million Americans vs. 36 million under the Democratic plan, lost a vote before the full House with zero Democrats voting in favor. A single Republican voted against his party on their substitute proposal – Illinois Representative Tim Johnson. The Republican proposal focused on tort reform and all but ignored the estimated 45 million uninsured Americans, along with issues such as outlawing pre-existing conditions.

*Edit*

If you are interested in knowing how your member of Congress voted on the Affordable Health Care for America Act, visit the following link: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml Man are they fast! The vote totals got posted within a few minutes. Also, I have included a video of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s floor speech earlier this afternoon below.

The poll also found more good news for Democrats that favor a public option. A majority of the public supports passing a public option even if it lacks any Republican votes at all:

Faced with a basic strategic choice that soon may confront the administration and Democratic congressional leaders, a slim majority of Americans, 51 percent, would prefer a reform plan that included some form of government insurance for people who cannot get affordable private coverage even if it had no GOP support in Congress. Thirty-seven percent would rather have a bipartisan plan without such a choice. Republicans and Democrats are on opposite sides of this question, with independents preferring legislation with a public option and without Republican support by 52 to 35 percent.

It’s clear where the public stands. Now Democrats needs to listen to those that elected them to change the system. Republicans will oppose any healthcare reform bill, whether it has a public option or not. We should put forward the strongest possible plan and that would be one that includes a competitor to private insurers. That is the only way costs will be driven down while protecting consumers.