Internal Dem Polling Memo Urges Dems To Empasize American Values, Target Insurance Industry
A polling memo being distributed on Capitol Hill tells Dems that the language about the insurance industry in Obama’s speech resonated in focus groups and urges them to keep targeting the insurance industry by talking about reform as the best way to hold them “accountable.”
It also stresses that Dems should keep emphasizing a connection between health care reform and American values and the “American character,” as Obama did in his speech.
The memo, which was sent over by a source, suggests that Dems are gambling that the president’s speech offers a good rhetorical frame to use to close out the health care debate.
The memo, done by pollster David Binder, says that research showed that the highest-rated message in Obama’s speech was when he said his plan would make it illegal for insurance companies to water down coverage, to price-gouge, or to deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition.
Also positively rated, the memo says, was when Obama said this: “I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable.”
The memo says that focus group participants also gave a big thumbs-up to the passage where Obama defended the role of government in improving people’s lives, saying that the “concern and regard for the plight of others” is “part of the American character.”
“This language,” the memo concludes, “can be used by Democrats as the debate moves forward.”
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
I wonder how much David Binder got paid to distribute a memo containing information that bloggers have been screaming at Democrats on the hill for months now?
I wonder if there’s any chance we’ll see that research he refers to. I’m doubtful. But I really want to know where the public option ranked in terms of favorability in responses.
BBQ, that’s a fantastic idea. I’ll ask him. Thanks.
I’ve thought all along that the moral argument is the winning argument here.
Of course, history somewhat belies that since we haven’t been able to pass this before on the moral argument. But I don’t think anyone else made that argument as well as Obama. He has a gift for just that kind of argument.
And who loves their insurance company? Seriously…
The Dems need to remind people that health insurers are just another set of players in the financial services industry.
Kathleen – one of the most reasonable things Obama explained, I thought, was that the insurance industry is a huge part of the economy – which it is. The insurance industry is one of the biggest investors in the US. Putting them out of business all at once would cause the market to collapse again I think. They have billions invested – that’s what they do with our money.
File this polling memo insight under “Duh.”
More transparent every single day!
A compromise on the Health Care Public Option which could break the impass. This approach would provide political cover for Blue-Dogs and Moderate Republicans.
With regards to the Public Option, or the proposal to substitute a Trigger clause, that would kick in down the road, if the other parts of the bill have not made the Insurance Gang clean up their act.
Firstly, that means there is wide consensus that The Insurance Gang must clean up their act. Would they do so, under the threat of a future trigger, that would probably be at least nine years from now, because the bill will probably not go into effect until 2013, and the Trigger clause would probably give the Insurance Gang at least five years from 2013 to show sufficient improvement, to avoid having the Trigger Public Option being instituted. That of course would then take a number of years, four or more, before it would really go into effect.
So we would probably not see a Trigger Option go into effect until, at the earliest, 2017.
Will that distant Trigger threat really compel The Insurance Gang to make serious changes in the next four years or more, or will the Wall St. desire for higher quarterly earnings on Insurance Stocks, require that the Insurance CEOs, in order to keep their jobs, stick with their old ways of doing business.
I am convinced that quarterly reports expediency will win out, and that the Trigger threat will be treated like the Paper Tiger, that it would be.
Here is the proper way to apply a Trigger clause, that would also provide Blue-Dog Democrats with cover.
This is the important part, so pay close attention to what I now propose.
Include a Public Option in the bill, with a clause that spells out that their is a future evaluation Trigger in the new law. The Public Option is only good for five years, and must then be re-approved by Congress, and the White House, and must be done so every five years. In fact the entire reform bill, should by law, be required to be renewed, and/or revised every five years. That way, we get to apply what we have learned about what works and what doesn’t twice each decade. If the Public Option has helped we renew it. If it has not, then we get rid of it.
That is a Trigger with teeth in it, a once. It becomes a real Tiger that those Insurance CEOs will have to take seriously, instead of the Paper Tiger threat of a future Public Option, in the sweet by and by.
All those who would vote for such a bill, would be able to tell their voters, that everyone agrees that the current system is broken, and that this new bill, with a five year trial period, will give the country a chance to see if a Public Option will help or not, and if it does not help, then they will kill it, when it comes up for renewal, but if it works and people decide that they like it, then they will renew it.
If you like that approach, and you have contacts in the proper places in Washington, then I urge you to push this proposal to them.
It could be the compromise that Blue Dog Democrats, and even a couple of moderate Republicans could sign on to.
File this polling memo insight under “Duh.”
Indeed. That more Congressional Dems. haven’t been going this way all along is the puzzling part.
One is reminded again that the Congressional Dems. are sometimes referred to as “the stupid party”……..
Tena, I realize they invest in our economy. But so do the Chinese, nobody’s thrilled about how much, and we keep a wary eye on them. I shouldn’t demonize insurers, but…lack of smart, consumer-friendly regulation drives reckless profit-taking. The free market is not free.
@Liam
So your plan is to have a Public Option that is only in effect for 5 years, then needs to be renewed? And again every 5 years?
What a horrible idea. You want this kind of political fight every 5 years, sucking political capitial from whatever Democratic WH and Congress we have? And if Republicans are in charge, say goodbye to the public option – sucessful or not. Also, that would reek havok on long term budget planning – having such a large entity in doubt 5 years down the road.
Really, there’s no upside.
Blue Dogs will vote for passage, even if it has a public option. They know, as EVERYONE knows, ,that a public option will lower costs and be provide good care. Everyone in DC knows it will be a political windfall for Democrats in the long run. If a public plan makes it to a vote, Blue Dogs will vote for it. They’ll vote for it because even in Red States, they’ll never get re-elected without Democrats in their state…who sure won’t be pleased with them if they vote against reform for whatever reason they try to peddle.
Even some Republicans I think would vote for it, for that very reason. They know it’s the right side of history. I don’t envy Eric Cantor, trying to whip people to vote against something most know will likely end up being a popular program (just like Medicare is now). Any Republican in a district Obama did well in is praying that the public option never makes it to a vote.
Why do you think they are fighting so hard to kill it NOW. The hurdle isn’t final passage. The hurdle is getting it to the floor in the first place.
We don’t need to give the Blue Dogs cover. They can vote for it, rally their base, and then fight a Republican for re-election. Or they can vote against it, and get swept from office in 2010 because they’ll have absolutely no Democratic support.
I like you reasoning BBQ, sure hope you’re right. We need to get it to a vote and I think we can thank the progressives for keeping it alive.
As well as Obama.
Kill Reaganism, drown it in the bathtub- that’s how you win this. Obama nailed it with his closing remarks on our national character.
“That large-heartedness — that concern and regard for the plight of others — is not a partisan feeling. It’s not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character — our ability to stand in other people’s shoes; a recognition that we are all in this together, and when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand; a belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.”
“You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter — that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.”
Those two paragraphs are the arguments to make. I have to say I have my doubts though. I recently got into, essentially, a screaming match with a good friend I thought was a reasonable conservative. I’ll add, she did the screaming- I provided the reasonable arguments. Witnessing such behavior from a good friend whom I respect- seeing the lack of reason and rationality, the refusal to listen, the paranoia, prejudice, and ignorance: I have serious doubts about how far we can pursue bi-partisanship and a true national conversation on important matters. I wonder if, perhaps, some of us have lost something important: reason. I hope they can get it back.
Duh!
Based on reports out of DC before the August recess, I was expecting to see a frontal assault on the healthcare-insurance industry during the recess. But it never happened. Could I have hallucinated those reports?
Anyway, it’s about time for some reality-based rationed-care and death-panel rhetoric, this time pointing the finger at the *real* culprits.
My how times have changed. The Dems are now the “values” party. What do the Republicans stand for these days? They seem to be the party of lies, fear mongering, race baiting, and everything that is petty and mean spirited. They are a pack of snarling malcontents that reflexively object to all things Obama. The president makes a speech telling kids to “stay in school” and the irrational reactionary conservatives want to take their children out of school. Brilliant.
It is very difficult to understand how the Republicans think that being the party of division, racism, lying, and ignorance is going to propel them to power and glory. It hasn’t been working too well for them so far.
Josephcast, you say, “Kill Reaganism, drown it in the bathtub- that’s how you win this.” And then you go on to wonder whether bi-partisanship and reasoned discussion can be regained. I think the inconsistency in your own statement and your own one-sided perspective show why there won’t ever be such discussion that meets any idealized notion of reason.
Your party is in power — complete power. President Obama routinely says his opponents are lying and acting in bad faith. Pelosi and others call them unAmerican and brown shirts. Indeed, need we yet again review the past few years of unbridled calumnies against George Bush et al? Read your fellow posters here.
Do routine accusations of treason and war crimes contribute to your problem? Just some inconvenient questions. I never look for actual answers from anyone here.
@lmsinca:
Thanks! And I agree with you, progressives and Obama are the reason the public option is still a likely outcome (despite the media’s wishful CW).
Though more progressives than Obama…
@josephcast:
Exactly right about the national character arguement. It’s true, and it’s a winner.
But I disagree with your thoughts about bipartisanship. This bill IS bipartisan. A public option IS bipartisan. Many, many polls show support for a public option from Republicans (even hovering around 50%). A bunch of Republican ideas and amendments were added to the bill.
Sure, MORE Democrats support this. But there are is a majority of Independents that support it, and even a solid amount of Republicans. This is a bipartisan bill – policy wise. The only thing that’s making it partisan is the politics…helpfully pushed by the traditional media.
I want Democrats to start saying it’s a bipartisan bill. Start asking Republicans why they are ignoring the contingent of their party that SUPPORT a public option, and the even more than might be willing to at least accept a public option. Drive a wedge between whatever rational conservative voters might still be out there, and the DC Republicans who are catering to the fridge and spreading fear, hate, and paranoia faster than the common cold.
Obama can never win such a “national character” argument, because his argument is totally inauthentic and against the grain of the actual “national character.” When he says “largeness of heart,” most people realize he is talking about raising their taxes and sapping their freedoms. Same problem liberals always have.
And when he talks about reasoned discussion, he lacks credibility because he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He can’t very well claim the moral high ground when he makes patently untrue claims and attacks his opponents for lying and acting in bad faith.
Let me add another reason why enough of them will vote for it so it passes.
Remember 1994? The Dems were swept away because of the widely held perception of a do-nothing Congress. Gridlock took its toll.
I think Blue Dogs are in much more jeopardy from that than the progressive base. They come from states and districts where their margin over Republicans is not so great. Progressives, not so much.
So Blue Dogs would seem to have a lot more to fear from a health-care failure than progressives. Yes, they will vote for it.
Kathleen – don’t get me wrong!
“Tena, I realize they invest in our economy. But so do the Chinese, nobody’s thrilled about how much, and we keep a wary eye on them. I shouldn’t demonize insurers, but…lack of smart, consumer-friendly regulation drives reckless profit-taking. The free market is not free.”
I’m for a single payer system – I want to see them out of business. I just get why it isn’t feasible to do it all at once.
@jzap:
You are 100% right. The Blue Dogs will be the first Dems in Congress to lose their jobs if HCR fails. I’d say that at least half the Blue Dogs won’t be back if they are they are stupid enough to block reform. At least. There may not BE a Blue Dog colitilition anymore if they get to an up or down vote and choose to sink reform.
@BBQ
The upside is that we would get the Public Option passed. If it does a good job, and people like it, they will want to keep it, so it will be very hard for their reps, to kill it. If it does not work, then it should be killed, and it would be better to have a way to do so, than having to explain why such a failure is still in place.
That is how Blue-Dogs can justify voting for it now. We have the get the bloody camel’s nose in the tent now.
Tell me how you think we can get the Blue-Dogs to vote for a Public Option, if we do not provide them with some political cover?
Edit:
we have to get…….
Perhaps, I should clarify. I think liberals and Dems can be bi-partisan. I don’t the GOP can. You are correct in your assertion, BBQ.
Quarterback-so Reaganism and Republicans are one and the same? One cannot be a Republican unless agreeing with trickle down economics and big gov’t is bad? I think Goldwater would disagree, so would Eisenhower, so would Nixon. These are examples of more reasonable Republicans, imho. Reaganism certainly defines the current party- but it doesn’t have to be that way. So, yes, drown Reaganism out and perhaps, I’ll listen. Admit that at times gov’t can work. There are many Republicans in the past that have shown this to be true. It’s unfortunate that the majority of Republicans today disagree with that so vehemently. Nixon and the EPA show otherwise, as did Eisenhower and the Interstate Highway system. Hell, Nixon wanted a gov’t health system. Today, these guys wouldn’t recognize the Republican party, let alone be welcome in it. It’s sad. So take my advice- maybe you’ll get more reasonable people in your party (and less nut-jobs): drown Reaganism in the bath tub. Sorry if that’s worded to harshly for you.
Anyways, I’m very disillusioned after my confrontation with my conservative friend. I was blown away how much a formerly reasonable Republican has become such a irrational wingnut. I guess propaganda works. We decided to forget the whole thing and remain friends (realizing we don’t have to like everything about the other or their poltics to remain so). But, wow! I do not hold much faith in having a reasonable discussion with people from the other side after this. It’s only my personal opinion based on personal experience, so I know it’s not true for everyone or scientific. Never the less, a bad taste has been left in my mouth.
So, yes, I have doubts about bipartisanship and it’s b/c the right wing has become so entrenched and so irrational. I think overall the Dems are operating in good faith with the other side, but I wouldn’t expect much in return.
sorry for the massive amounts of typso. :/
Futhermore, Quarterback- false equivalencies do little to further your statement. Most criticism against Bush was deserved- he was a horrible President. If you can’t admit that- well, that’s part of the problem too.
“Perhaps, I should clarify. I think liberals and Dems can be bi-partisan. I don’t the GOP can. You are correct in your assertion, BBQ.”
…and by this I mean those in Washington. I, too, realize that some Republicans support the public option. I haven’t encountered any- but the polls seem to imply they are out there. Kudos, to those Republicans that support the public option. I’d like to talk to one or even hear from one.
Rasmussen poll results from today:
The President’s speech also provided a modest bounce in support for his health care plans. Polling conducted over the past two nights shows that 46% of voters now support the reform proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats. Opposition is down to 51%. However, it’s a partisan bounce as the increase in support comes entirely from within the President’s own party
David Binder knows his onions
josephcast,
I disagree that, “Reaganism certainly defines the current party” when referring to modern Republicans.
In what way do they bear any resemblance to Reagan? Certainly not fiscally, for they objected not one wit when Bush II was in office and sent the deficit to record levels causing . It certainly isn’t in the family values department; replay any of the dozen+ sexually lurid scandals that have plagued Republicans recently. Reagan was well known to be able to work with Democrats, while today’s would-be Reaganites are petty obstructionists. No resemblance in the ideas department either; modern Republicans have no ideas. They also cannot lay claim to the “smaller government” mantra as they helped usher in the biggest increase in government in decades under Bush the lesser.
I think Reagan was the third worst president in history, but he was infinitely more serious about being a public servant that the clowns that populate the Republican Party today. They wish they could truly be called Reaganites.
The second sentence, second paragraph, in my previous post should read, “Certainly not fiscally, for they objected not one wit when Bush II was in office and sent the deficit to record levels, causing the recent financial catastrophic meltdown.”
You are correct, Gasman. I was thinking about this some more on the night shift tonight. I think what has happened to the current Republican base is “Reaganism on crack” and say this regarding the hyperbolic attacks against big government, tax cuts, etc that we see coming from the Teabaggers and supported by leadership. Regarding your points on Bush vs. Reagan: Absolutely- this highlights a big problem w/ the current Republicans, their hypocrisy. They still sing praise of Reagan and Bush when the two ran gov’t in completely opposite ways. Thanks for pointing this out.
However, overall I still maintain that Reaganism (the notion that gov’t programs are all bad, that we can never raise taxes, etc) is a major problem we have to tackle as a society. Though, perhaps to modify my above point, we do not need to drown it in the bath tub. Rather, perhaps we need to kill Reaganism with kindness- by explaining things as eloquently as Obama did in his speech and by making sure our policies help the common man and woman in this country. Namely, we need to show people gov’t can work and at times it is necessary for gov’t to take an active approach.
Also, thanks for pointing out the good things with Reagan. Personally, I’m not a big fan so I thank you for the added perspective on his leadership. I should note that when I talk of Reaganism I’m generally focusing on the negative things that have been his legacy (again the down with big gov’t mantra, anti-regulation, anti-tax, etc).
HAR HAR
Only a fool would believe a “progressive” believes in American Values.
Only a fool would believe it is an “American Value” for the government to put the insurance industry and it’s thousand of workers out of business.
Send out all the memo’s you want America knows what your values are and they are getting farther and farther from anything even close to an American Value.
But keep denying reality “progressives” and when it bites you in the arse I will be laughing my arse off. Only because of your intolerance and arrogance that you somehow own this country.
How stupid can people be to think that our goverment can provide for all Americans but putting the private sector out of work. Who in the heck will pay for all your failed entitlement programs???
Most Americans are SICK of both parties as you will see in a few hours but will disregard and claim it’s all Glen Beck or whatever flavor of blame you pick for the day.
Our government is run by a mob only instead of the mafia they are politicians some have D’s behind their names and some have R’s.
So continue to ignore reality and blame all ills on your political opponents while denying the decades that many of your leaders have been sitting on their fat arses in DC voting on legislation they don’t even read creating a total mess out of this country while pointing the finger at everyone but themselves. Pigs is what they are and they have a large following of piglets.
@ yippie…
lol. All I can picture is some old long grey-haired hippie, typing away at the blogs, sending his crusade thru half thought out illusions. The drugs were pretty powerful in the old days, huh?
However, you’re right about some things. The pigs and piglets. But it’s not a mafia. It is self greed. Ever sit in the office with any Congress person? They talk down at your and basically shun you out of their world. Most refuse to listen to anything that is not on their agenda. And the more rank, the more powerful. Step on their toes and look-out Loretta! It’s all self greed! Many get re-elected because they have the rich and powerful in their pockets from within their district.
Of course, you prolly think that the south should have won the civil war too?
I’ve been out for a while, so I suppose this response is too late to matter.
Josephcast, we just see different realities in many ways. You think the Republican Party show go back to a big-government Nixon/Rockefeller era. I.e., become even more of a me-too liberal party. No thanks.
Anyone who refers to “trickle down economics” lives in a world closed to the truth and is just peddling socialist grievance and resentment, in my view. There is no basis for rational discussion with someone so addled by leftist propoganda. How you imagine that Barry Goldwater was an economic liberal I can’t fathom.
Your view that Democrats are innocent of poisonous and divisive behavior and rhetoric because, in your opinion, George Bush was a “horrible” president who presumably deserved everything said about him reflects a hopeless state of delusion and partisan blindness.
I note that no one, as usual, could defend how Obama can pretend to condemn “petty bickering” and partisanship while he also condemns his opponents as acting in bad faith. It is pure hypocrisy.