Nate Silver: No Public Option Would Be On Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:24:37 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Nate Silver:

[I]f the only two choices were to pass a bill with a public option and nothing at all, and everyone knew these were the only two choices, I believe at least some Blue Dogs would cave and the bill would stand a decent shot at passing. . . . The reason that I wrote earlier this week that a bill with a public option was "probably" dead is because I've long believed that leadership from the White House might make the difference between a bill with a public option just barely passing and it just barely failing to do so. . . . [T]he situation could also be a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy: the public option might have passed, if only the White House had been willing to agitate for it -- but since they weren't willing to do so, it couldn't . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) Maybe Ezra and Co. will pick up on this.

Speaking for me only

< Waiting for Godot (aka Max Baucus) | Obama's Troubles With Democrats >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Nate Silver: No Public Option Would Be On Obama | 41 comments (41 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

but (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by TeresaInPa on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:37:33 PM EST

agitating would not be cool and Obama has a cool persona he has to protect.

He's cool for a reason though (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Socraticsilence on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:05:46 PM EST

Angry black man- is a thing that this country only accepts in extremely small doses.


He can lead and be forceful (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by nycstray on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:20:21 PM EST

without being angry black man.

And I really doubt that's his thinking here.


Although I did see a recent headline (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by oculus on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:21:36 PM EST

questioning why the plight of African Americans was not part of the health care reform debate.


Because it isn't about "care"? (5.00 / 5) (#9)
by nycstray on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:25:41 PM EST

A lot is missing from the "debate", "care" being one . . .


depends (none / 0) (#11)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:32:36 PM EST

on what you care about


: What I don't care about (5.00 / 5) (#15)
by nycstray on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:48:09 PM EST

is mandated profits to the insurance industry . . .

If at all. (none / 0) (#39)
by prittfumes on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 04:44:15 PM EST

Kind of lame (5.00 / 8) (#3)
by Steve M on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:54:05 PM EST

Saying the White House's power is sufficiently only to make the difference between "barely passing" and "barely failing" is a more nuanced version of Ezra's argument that the WH is essentially powerless.

The WH has a tremendous ability to influence the process. Whether they flex that muscle, and whether they do so effectively, those are separate issues, but it's absurd to argue that all they can do is stand by passively and maybe possibly put a teeny tiny thumb on the scale.

well it's also silly to argue (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by lilburro on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:00:45 PM EST

that when everyone says Bill Clinton had too much influence. It isn't necessarily true that they have to stand by passively - its only true because that's actually the strategy here, and has been, from Day 1.


Valid point (5.00 / 6) (#6)
by Steve M on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:14:00 PM EST

but I always thought the argument that the Clintons were primarily responsible for the outcome was overstated. I agree with Robert Reich that Obama "overlearned" the lessons of the Clinton Administration by taking a completely hands-off approach to drafting the legislation - although I'm not ready to write a post-mortem unless and until the thing actually fails.

The primary determinant of success or failure is not the tactics or the daily gotcha game but the underlying fundamentals, which in this case means the raw numbers in Congress. The Democrats should be able to pass something halfway decent through sheer numerical advantage, and it's really bad if they don't.


Yes. If it doesn't matter if Dems (5.00 / 8) (#10)
by Cream City on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:27:10 PM EST

are in the majority, then let them go back to being in the minority, so at least their excuses won't sound so whiny.


I don't agree with Robert Reich though (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:07:29 PM EST

Obama doesn't agree with FDR style programs and I think that is what ties this thing up.


From Audacity of Hope and Aspen Times (none / 0) (#32)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 07:24:25 PM EST

Aspen Times link

In a chapter titled, "Opportunity," Obama writes with admiration about Franklin D. Roosevelt "saving capitalism from itself through an activist federal government that invests in its people and infrastructure, regulates the marketplace, and protects labor from chronic deprivation."
A liberal welfare state won't work today, Obama wrote. But two years before the economic collapse at the end of 2008, he also insisted that the Bush administration's approach of lowering taxes, paring regulations and shrinking the safety net for U.S. citizens was equally outdated.

I never forgot reading his take on how anything FDR would play out in the "real world" now. He has his mind made up until we unmake it for him. He wants there to be some brave new world out there instead making the same old world brave again. I had to search high and low for someone out there who put it on the net and thank you to the Aspen Times!


That sounds, dare I say it (5.00 / 3) (#33)
by Cream City on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 10:10:04 PM EST

rather Reaganesque of Obama.

: I was one of those things (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 10:31:08 PM EST

that stuck to me and with me when he was running. For whatever reason, I could not get reading that out of my mind. A siren went off for me.

As leader of the Democratic party, the majority (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by ademption on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:34:11 PM EST

party in both the House and the Senate, then of course, the public option rests upon whether President Obama wanted it or not. I concluded that he didn't want it back in March when Ben Nelson announced that he was against the public option and then Olympia Snowe came out against it etc. The past couple of months have been extra drama as far as I'm concerned.

If President Obama had been firmly for the public option, wouldn't people have a clear idea where he AND his administration stood on the topic instead of all this back and forth this past week etc? The netroots wouldn't have to fundraise over whether Congress members supported it or not.

Back in March when I first figured out that there would be no public option, President Obama had astronomical approval ratings. He was at the height of his power. If he really cared about the public option, couldn't he have leaned on Ben Nelson and other Democrats to support the public option so at least the entire Democratic party was united on the issue? Who knows? Maybe he could have leaned on Olympia Snowe back then as well? If people really want something, they'll make it happen. If President Obama really wanted the public option, he wouldn't be so wishy washy about it... JMHO, of course....

Obama didn't think he had to sell this (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:38:16 PM EST

He thought he could get anything and everything done. Everything has worked for Obama, why wouldn't he think that this would too?

He's never had to be a forceful leader on any issue. I bet no one is more surprised than Obama by the way this issue has turned against him. Now that it has, he seems ill equipped, or maybe just inexperienced, as to how to handle it.

That's being generous (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by ademption on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:51:04 PM EST

The ineffectual weak leader who didn't know how to get the public option in the bill is an attractive theory for some.

But it could just be that he never really believed in the public option in the first place and so wasn't willing to go to bat for it. That's my theory by the way. During the primaries, both HRC and Obama were competing for the Edwards' voters as well as single payer folks. Michael Moore's movie Sicko had just come out and the public option was seen as a nice compromise. Edwards came out supporting Hacker's idea of a public option first if I recall correctly. Then Obama and then HRC. Again, if i recall correctly, David Cutler, Obama's healthcare guru, was mostly concerned about cost containment. IMHO, if Obama had his way, we wouldn't be talking about the public option. This is just left over primary business...

JMHO, of course...


He also wasn't for mandates (5.00 / 6) (#19)
by MO Blue on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:03:17 PM EST

So if we are taking out the public option, let's take out the mandates too. Also, I don't recall him running on cutting the Medicare and Medicaid budgets during either the primary or the genera.l So let's take that out of the health insurance package as well.


I don't think enough folks (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by nycstray on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:12:05 PM EST

are talking about the mandates.


You didn't listen hard enough (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by ademption on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:20:13 PM EST

Obama wasn't for mandates unless convinced otherwise. From David Cutler, Obama's health advisor in a 2008 interview with Brad Delong:

David Cutler: If there are free riders, Obama is open to mandates. But what he is saying is %u2018Look, mandates seem like a panacea, but that's not where the hard work needs to be done.' Auto insurance is a mandate, too, and not everyone has that. You've got to prove to the public that you're willing to do the hard work.'

Richard Eskow: Would mandates be considered at that point?

David Cutler: He hasn't ruled anything out. It's a matter of priorities. The fact is, the policy differences on the mandate issue aren't that large at all. Sen. Obama believes they're an option down the road, if other approaches don't work.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/02/richard-eskow-t.html

I guess those other approaches didn't work so he changed his mind. Listen, he hadn't ruled anything out too!! You can't fault him for the individual mandates, if you were listening to him closely....


Yikes, Obama really didn't know (5.00 / 5) (#22)
by Cream City on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:26:44 PM EST

that auto insurance is not a mandate in many states? That it's not a federal mandate, so not the same thing at all -- when you're running for president? I didn't know that one. Ouch. More cause for worry as to what he really knows vs. what he thinks he knows?


: I have a choice on where I live (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by nycstray on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:06:14 PM EST

and whether I choose to drive or not. For my adult life, it's been urban and never had a DL. When I move to the mountains, my choice, that will change. Kinda different than someone telling me I have to buy overpriced, under-performing health insurance.

Funny, those Harry & Louise (none / 0) (#38)
by MO Blue on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:22:49 AM EST

ads that his campaign ran during the primary sounded real anti-mandate to me.


I don't think Obama ever came out for (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by sallywally on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:52:17 PM EST

the public option then - I think that was always Edwards's idea - or for mandates, which was Hillary's thing.


: Incorrect (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:55:06 PM EST

Obama's plan featured a public option.
The mandate issue was where he was different.

and mine (none / 0) (#17)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:53:40 PM EST

unfortunately.


During the Democratic primaries (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by hairspray on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:48:36 PM EST

Obama said that he would be a "hands off president." He went on to say he would provide the ideas. That is when I said Oh!Oh! I've never seen that work except in Academica where there is no real responsibility for these things. On the other hand when HRC kept saying "I will fight for you" I was pretty clear what she was promising.


Not sure Obama said that, but (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by sallywally on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:55:04 PM EST

when Clinton said she would fight for us I believed her - and I still do.


That's interesting he said that (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by ademption on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:04:20 PM EST

On the David Barber's presidential personality test, I always thought that President Obama would have a passive personality. I just wasn't sure whether it would be active or negative. But the passive/negative personality seems to fit him:

WITHDRAWN: responds to a sense of duty; avoid power; low self-esteem compensated by service to others; responds rather than initiates; avoids conflict and uncertainty. emphasizes principles and procedures and an aversion to politicking.

http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/414%20presidential_character.htm


I had some of the same thoughts about (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by hairspray on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 05:19:32 PM EST

him. He didn't have enough real experience to judge his effectiveness in the senate as far as I was concerned. He had a good resume for entry level senate, but not presidency. Being a senator is not an executive experience, so long term senatorial experience then becomes very important. On the other hand I saw more long years of activism from HRC including what she learned at Bill's side and felt more sure about her willingness to work for the causes she espoused.


Dunno about (none / 0) (#35)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 12:27:48 AM EST

the low self-esteem part of that. Far as I can tell, his problem is 180 degrees from that. I also don't think I can buy into the "responds to a sense of duty" or "avoid power" parts. I think we're talking about a very different personality profile.


: Well (none / 0) (#36)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 06:39:45 AM EST

he actually could have the low self esteem because some people who do have that come off as completely the opposite due to trying to overcompensate. Other than that, I agree with the rest of what you are saying.

You nailed it, Brass. (none / 0) (#40)
by prittfumes on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 05:08:01 PM EST

Reinforced in spades when Obama-first-term-senator became Obama-POTUS. What else could possibly be required of the most powerful man in the universe other than to hand the grunt work off to "lesser beings"? He never considered that actually being president would a little bit more difficult than becoming president.


: would be (none / 0) (#41)
by prittfumes on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 05:10:26 PM EST

That's Democracy (5.00 / 5) (#14)
by ruffian on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:38:30 PM EST

Via Sam Stein at HuffPo Snowe says no public option, WH press secretary Burnett says "That's Democracy" and goes on to add that they've worked with the whole political spectrum.

Yeah - the entire spectrum from Baucus to Snowe.

I do believe the WH has power, but they have elected to use it back up Baucus.

Let her have her "no public option" now (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by andgarden on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:59:32 PM EST

to keep the CfG or whatever happy. And then watch her turn around and vote for the conference report w/ a public option. I believe she will.


: She very well may (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by ruffian on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:53:33 PM EST

if it makes it into the conference report. I hope the Gang of Six gets told ' thanks, but no thanks' in conference. That's politics!

Nate's argument is ... (none / 0) (#2)
by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:49:19 PM EST

so nuanced, it's barely an argument at all.

Though its weak-willed, subjunctive maundering could be just the type of thing to influence Ezra.

Obama's Motivation Problem (none / 0) (#37)
by john horse on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 07:03:50 AM EST

Reading Nate Silver's arguement made me realize that Obama has a motivation problem when it comes to the public option.

What I mean by motivation can be expressed in this formula, M=VxSE. M stands for motivation. V stands for the value you place on a goal or task. SE stands for self-efficacy or the belief that one can accomplish that goal or task.

Studies have shown that you can have low value and accomplish a goal or task or you can have low self-efficacy and accomplish that goal or task but when you have both low value and low sef-efficacy you are basically doomed. What I worry about with Obama is that not only does he seem to not believe that he can get health reform with a public option passed but he also appears to me to not be placing a high value on the public option.