PSB: Progressive Illinois Politics - Recent Comments

Special interest

highrise — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:35:46 GMT

The most troubling special interest is the legal lobby. Why is it the only group not asked to sacrifice for our health care reform are the lawyers? It's because lawyers from both parties, and from within the executive branch are, and have been, writing the rules. Lawyers should help facilitate the people who work for a living and know the work of business to do their jobs, they (the lawyers) should not be driving the ideas to tell all of us how to live. At least the bankers provide the financing that drives American and world-wide growth - as imperfect as they are. Lawyers produce NOTHING and, worse, they as a group devise the rules that keep them always in business.

Silver at 538 Sheds Some Stat-light on the Climate/Energy Votes

wegerje — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:52:41 GMT

He lists Foster as an "un-likely" nay vote and Hill as an "un-likely" yea vote. Our table illustrates that possibility as well.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

But we have 60 Democratic Senators . . .

BrianG — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:00:39 GMT

he says snarkily. Until the progressive movement is willing to flex its muscle, the status quo will stay in place. It is time to outlaw special interest money, a.k.a. campaign contributions, which is warping the legislative process. Progressives have to take on the Blue Dems and the GOP, these two are the true legislative majority. These groups have for far too long rammed through their agenda over the wishes of the majority of Americans. It's time to plant our feet and take a stand and start making demands.

In the last two federal elections, the electorate has overwhelmingly rejected the GOP vision which has predominated American politics since the 1980's. President Obama campaigned on the "change" platform. It's time to deliver it.

i made the case i'm willing to make...

bored now — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:05:15 GMT

bill foster supports nancy pelosi, and that's good enough for me. i've tried to offer reasons why foster would vote against a bill that is/will be portrayed as a jobs killer by republicans, but you didn't find it compelling. cie la vie.

i'm not familiar enough with foster's district to speculate that the area where one could expect foster to have trouble would be in the suburbs. i strongly suspect that foster will do well in the suburbs, and that is why he won in the past. you may know something i don't. but i don't know why he would need a wedge issue to exploit among "suburban white voters." not that i buy your suggestion. i expect the wedge issue in 2010 to be the economy, and the republican's frame of this bill as a jobs killer would fit within that expectation.

do you expect foster to perform badly in the "white suburbs?"

Make the case

Willinois — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:02:50 GMT

"while you may be willing to risk foster's political career, it appears that he is not."

You keep repeating this but you still haven't made the case. The first poll question you cited is outdated and poorly worded. A more recent poll showed support for cap-and-trade specifically by a 10-14 point margin, even when people are told it will cost them more money. The fact that one poll question out of twenty gets a bare majority of opposition isn't convincing. There's no indication that global warming or the waxman-markey bill are losing issues in his district.

You seem to be making the simple assumption that any Democratic issue is a liability in a Republican leaning district. There's no evidence of that being true on this specific issue in this district, which is as much suburban as rural, and voted for Obama by 55%. If swing voters in the growing suburbs wanted a talk radio global warming denier then they would have voted for Oberweis.

Democrats have no better wedge issue that works to their advantage with suburban white voters than the environment. Democrats who don't understand that are missing opportunities to expand their voter base.

Sorry, meant to post a comment to the diarist. n/t

BobB — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:38:49 GMT

BTW, it's "Alexi Giannoulias". I've corrected the Tag. n/t

BobB — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:37:40 GMT

What really would have been news...

Randall Sherman — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:36:13 GMT

...would have been if Greg Hinz had posted a column without citing the possibility of someone running for something. We are in the midst of the silly season for such columnists, who will include a comment about some possible candidacy for office in virtually everything they write.

By far the worst such offender is Michael Sneed. She is known for posting advance speculation on as many as a dozen potential candidates for an office. If by chance one of them eventually runs and wins, Sneed will be the first to boast about having had a prediction about said candidate way back when, conviently ignoring the numerous other predictions she made that were full of it!

personally, i'm not sure democrats are effective...

bored now — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:23:16 GMT

at framing, and certainly not in rural congressional districts. so i agree with half of your formulation -- republicans will argue that this bill will increase your taxes and bring little benefits.

i'd have no problem with democrats getting better organized in the 14th in a way that would allow them to effectively counter republican talking points. that sounds like a plan. can't wait to see it happen.

you seem more impressed by the apple pie argument than i. again, there's a reason why political campaigns don't rely on public polling, but on surveys that ask vital questions several different ways. while you may be willing to risk foster's political career, it appears that he is not. i'm not surprised, and assume he understands his district.

this vote actually demonstrates the effectiveness of the argument i've been making, rather than the counter-argument you've offered. electing more democrats to congress, even conservative democrats, has given them more room to maneuver, allowing them to move forward a progressive agenda. electing more progressives wasn't nearly as important as electing more democrats when you have a congressional leadership that supports a progressive agenda. who sets the agenda decides what gets passed. the only thing i asked foster was, will you vote for pelosi for speaker. viola! cap and trade is passed. i don't require 100% agreement with my issues to support elected officials. i pretty much assume that they won't support my stands one hundred percent of the time...

My angle

Willinois — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:36:39 GMT

Sure, Republicans will make that argument. And Democrats will point out the jobs created and the money people will save on their monthly utility bill through residential efficiency programs. Conceivably, people served by utilities that use more nuclear power, like Foster's district, could see the least cost increase and still realize benefits from efficiency programs.

If you're so quick to make excuses for any Democrat in a tough district, even on an issue with such overwhelming public support like this one, then we're guaranteed to never have a working majority for any progressive issue whether its the environment, health care, the right to organize, tax policy, etc.

The talk radio crowd is making a lot of noise, but even in this district, they aren't more than 20%-30% of the voter base who never vote Democratic anyway. Remember that he won his district because voters did NOT want a far-right talk radio style Republican. His vulnerability is being cast in with the global warming deniers.

here's the argument republicans were making...

bored now — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:13:12 GMT

and that, presumably, foster felt he needed to consider (same poll):

36. (HALF SAMPLE) What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 25 dollars a month - in that case would you support or oppose it?

Support Oppose No opinion
6/21/09 44 54 1
7/28/08 47 51 2

in the end, i suspect both ends of this question is too generous. i don't expect the bill to "significantly lower greenhouse gases" and i suspect that we will pay more than $25 a month for it (out of our pockets). we'll see benefits from lower health care costs, etc, but those aren't out of pocket costs.

you seem inclined to look at this issue only one way. i tend to look at issues from a variety of points of view, specifically looking for political vulnerability. foster will always be vulnerable in this particular district, and it is good that he is aware of that and chooses his fights...

also

Willinois — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:53:41 GMT

the poll you cited was before the federal report on the impacts of climate change so its usefulness is questionable on multiple levels.

How?

Willinois — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:48:50 GMT

We won't know in 2010 whether he would have gotten more votes had he supported this bill.

The question I cited was specific. It's not a contrast of vague v specific questions. It's a matter of the question you cited being poorly worded, especially since a large majority of the public doesn't know what cap-and-trade means. It makes the question relatively meaningless and subtle difference in language can produce dramatically different results.

On what basis do you suggest he voted his district? First you'd have to show that the large majorities of Democrats and independents, and often a small majority of Republicans who support action on global warming would vote against Foster because they don't like cap-and-trade specifically. That seems highly unlikely.

Support for the bill wouldn't anger anyone beyond the talk radio crowd, which isn't a majority of the district and wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.

There are more recent, and specifically worded, polls than yours that show majority support for cap-and-trade.

June 25 Wash Post - ABC Poll

Q: There's a proposed system called "cap and trade." The government would issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gasses companies can put out. Companies that did not use all their permits could sell them to other companies. The idea is that many companies would find out ways to put out less green house gasses, because that would be cheaper than buying permits.
Would you support or oppose this system?

52% support. 42% oppose.

Q: What if the program significantly lowered greenhouse gasses but raised your monthly electrical bill by $10 a month?

56% support. 42% oppose.

The general question about regulating greenhouse gasses has 75% support. Puppies and ice cream don't poll any better. There was nothing politically astute about this vote.

you're right, they porked it up...

bored now — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:56:23 GMT

you are free to compare very general polling questions to very specific ones if you like. i don't find those ambiguous questions meaningful, unless one is raising money. 70-odd percent want health care reform, but 70-odd percent don't want their health care coverage effected. most people realize that results can be skewed by the questions -- which is why political pollsters ask the same question a different way at least 3 times inside the same poll.

near as i can tell, foster voted his district. he voted for survival. we should applaud him for his political astuteness, seeing that his vote wasn't needed. we'll know whether he succeeded in november, 2010...

please

Willinois — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:23:50 GMT

This bill was far more than cap and trade. It surprises me that a question worded in that way, that doesn't mention any of the economic benefits of the bill and says "some people" believe in global warming, receives as much as 44% support. Polls worded differently show very different results.

I understand that Foster thinks the bill is imperfect and I'll look forward to his vote on the other major climate change bill with a decent chance of passing Congress...if only there were one.

Here's a more recent poll:
http://www.usnews.com/articles...

Even when voters were told that opponents of climate legislation view it as "an energy tax increase of $1,300 on the average family," support remained high: 73 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans said they would still support "a plan to curb global warming," the poll found.