An interesting post on why the bailout vote failed...

[Cali Coug]

From fivethirtyeight.com:

This was predictable, I suppose, but it's remarkable to see how strong a relationship there is between today's failed vote on the bailout and the competitive nature of different House races.

Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.

By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.

A complete breakdown follows below the fold.

REPUBLICANS
AK-AL Young R NAY
CO-4 Musgrave R NAY
CT-4 Shays R YEA
FL-8 Keller R NAY
FL-21 L Diaz-Balart R NAY
FL-24 Feeney R NAY
FL-25 M Diaz-Balart R NAY
ID-1 Sali R NAY
IL-10 Kirk R YEA
MI-7 Walberg R NAY
MI-9 Knollenberg R NAY
MO-6 Graves R NAY
NC-8 Hayes R NAY
NV-3 Porter R YEA
NY-29 Kuhl R NAY
OH-1 Chabot R NAY
OH-2 Schmidt R NAY
PA-3 English R NAY
VA-2 Drake R NAY
WA-8 Reichert R NAY
VULNERABLE GOP = 3 YEAS, 17 NAYS (15%)
OTHER GOP = 62 YEAS, 116 NAYS (35%)

DEMOCRATS
AZ-5 Mitchell D NAY
AZ-8 Giffords D NAY
CA-11 McNerney D YEA
FL-16 Mahoney D YEA
GA-8 Marshall D YEA
IL-14 Foster D YEA
IN-9 Hill D NAY
KS-2 Boyda D NAY
KY-3 Yarmuth D NAY
LA-6 Cazayoux D NAY
MS-1 Childers D NAY
NH-1 Shea-Porter D NAY
NY-20 Gillibrand D NAY
PA-4 Altmire D NAY
PA-10 Carney D NAY
PA-11 Kanjorski D YEA
TX-22 Lampson D NAY
WI-8 Kagen D NAY
VULNERABLE DEMS = 5 YEAS, 13 NAYS (28%)
OTHER DEMS = 135 YEAS, 82 NAYS (62%)

ALL VULNERABLES = 8 YEAS, 30 NAYS (21%)
OTHERS = 197 YEAS, 198 NAYS (50%)



UPDATE: A helpful reader named Matt Glassman passed along the fact that, among 26 congressmen NOT running for re-election (almost all of whom are Republicans), 23 voted in favor of the bill, as opposed to 2 against and one abstaining.

EDIT (4:24 PM): The count above may not be exact -- Eve Fairbanks finds 4 retiring Republicans who voted against the bill -- but the general point should stand.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

UPDATE: A helpful reader named Matt Glassman passed along the fact that, among 26 congressmen NOT running for re-election (almost all of whom are Republicans), 23 voted in favor of the bill, as opposed to 2 against and one abstaining.

Wow, so you're saying our representatives still fear their constituents? Guess all is not lost just yet. Maybe we still have some power.

Chris Cannon (my rep) was one of those losers.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

From fivethirtyeight.com:

This was predictable, I suppose, but it's remarkable to see how strong a relationship there is between today's failed vote on the bailout and the competitive nature of different House races.

Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.

By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.

A complete breakdown follows below the fold.

REPUBLICANS
AK-AL Young R NAY
CO-4 Musgrave R NAY
CT-4 Shays R YEA
FL-8 Keller R NAY
FL-21 L Diaz-Balart R NAY
FL-24 Feeney R NAY
FL-25 M Diaz-Balart R NAY
ID-1 Sali R NAY
IL-10 Kirk R YEA
MI-7 Walberg R NAY
MI-9 Knollenberg R NAY
MO-6 Graves R NAY
NC-8 Hayes R NAY
NV-3 Porter R YEA
NY-29 Kuhl R NAY
OH-1 Chabot R NAY
OH-2 Schmidt R NAY
PA-3 English R NAY
VA-2 Drake R NAY
WA-8 Reichert R NAY
VULNERABLE GOP = 3 YEAS, 17 NAYS (15%)
OTHER GOP = 62 YEAS, 116 NAYS (35%)

DEMOCRATS
AZ-5 Mitchell D NAY
AZ-8 Giffords D NAY
CA-11 McNerney D YEA
FL-16 Mahoney D YEA
GA-8 Marshall D YEA
IL-14 Foster D YEA
IN-9 Hill D NAY
KS-2 Boyda D NAY
KY-3 Yarmuth D NAY
LA-6 Cazayoux D NAY
MS-1 Childers D NAY
NH-1 Shea-Porter D NAY
NY-20 Gillibrand D NAY
PA-4 Altmire D NAY
PA-10 Carney D NAY
PA-11 Kanjorski D YEA
TX-22 Lampson D NAY
WI-8 Kagen D NAY
VULNERABLE DEMS = 5 YEAS, 13 NAYS (28%)
OTHER DEMS = 135 YEAS, 82 NAYS (62%)

ALL VULNERABLES = 8 YEAS, 30 NAYS (21%)
OTHERS = 197 YEAS, 198 NAYS (50%)



UPDATE: A helpful reader named Matt Glassman passed along the fact that, among 26 congressmen NOT running for re-election (almost all of whom are Republicans), 23 voted in favor of the bill, as opposed to 2 against and one abstaining.

EDIT (4:24 PM): The count above may not be exact -- Eve Fairbanks finds 4 retiring Republicans who voted against the bill -- but the general point should stand.

Why is this bad? Should I be disgusted? I'm not. This is how it's supposed to work. They should fear for their jobs if they ignore what an overwhelming majority of constituents want.

Why do you yearn for an inside the beltway and Wall Street deal, anti-democratic and partial? Because you're a liberal democrat?

[MikeWaters]

Vote the bastards out!

[Tex]

I'm really not sure why this is interesting, either. Seems like a no-brainer.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It shouldn't necessarily be a no brainer.

There are multiple models as to how representatives should behave. One posits that they should always do what their constituents want (they have been elected to express the views of their constituents and should be slaves to that will with no individual discretion). That seems to be the model advocated by most in this thread. If that is the model, I can see why many voters don't place a high degree of importance on judgment and intelligence in leaders. Those traits would be wholly unnecessary if the representative is supposed to just "follow the polls."

Another model posits that the representative was elected because of superior judgment and intellect and ought to have the ability to make his own determination as to what is correct and what is not, and if he makes too many decisions incorrectly, the people may hold him accountable at the next election.

I find it a bit surprising that so many members of Congress would tend to fall into the first category. I wonder if the proximity of the election has temporarily moved them into a mode of self-preservation. If the election were a bit further away, would they find themselves more in the second group than the first, or are they always in the first group?

the correct model:

1. they are owned by the rich and powerful
2. they occasionally have to go against the rich and powerful to hold their positions

This answers every action in this vote.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Why is this bad? Should I be disgusted? I'm not. This is how it's supposed to work. They should fear for their jobs if they ignore what an overwhelming majority of constituents want.

Why do you yearn for an inside the beltway and Wall Street deal, anti-democratic and partial? Because you're a liberal democrat?

Aren't you the one that once had a sig line that read "The masses are asses"?

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It shouldn't necessarily be a no brainer.

There are multiple models as to how representatives should behave. One posits that they should always do what their constituents want (they have been elected to express the views of their constituents and should be slaves to that will with no individual discretion). That seems to be the model advocated by most in this thread. If that is the model, I can see why many voters don't place a high degree of importance on judgment and intelligence in leaders. Those traits would be wholly unnecessary if the representative is supposed to just "follow the polls."

Another model posits that the representative was elected because of superior judgment and intellect and ought to have the ability to make his own determination as to what is correct and what is not, and if he makes too many decisions incorrectly, the people may hold him accountable at the next election.

I find it a bit surprising that so many members of Congress would tend to fall into the first category. I wonder if the proximity of the election has temporarily moved them into a mode of self-preservation. If the election were a bit further away, would they find themselves more in the second group than the first, or are they always in the first group?

You remind me of Anderson Cooper today. The guy was incredulous at the thought of representatives actually bowing to the demands of their constituents "just to get re-elected", while ignoring what was clearly "best for the country".

You guys just don't get it, do you?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It shouldn't necessarily be a no brainer.

There are multiple models as to how representatives should behave. One posits that they should always do what their constituents want (they have been elected to express the views of their constituents and should be slaves to that will with no individual discretion). That seems to be the model advocated by most in this thread. If that is the model, I can see why many voters don't place a high degree of importance on judgment and intelligence in leaders. Those traits would be wholly unnecessary if the representative is supposed to just "follow the polls."

Another model posits that the representative was elected because of superior judgment and intellect and ought to have the ability to make his own determination as to what is correct and what is not, and if he makes too many decisions incorrectly, the people may hold him accountable at the next election.

I find it a bit surprising that so many members of Congress would tend to fall into the first category. I wonder if the proximity of the election has temporarily moved them into a mode of self-preservation. If the election were a bit further away, would they find themselves more in the second group than the first, or are they always in the first group?

The calls/letters were coming in somewhere between 8:1 and 1000:1 against, depending on who you listen to. Just how far does telling your constituents, "You elected me for my superior judgment and intellect" go, hmm?

We all know you love Obama because he possesses all the Gifts of the Spirit, but don't be so surprised when some folks expect their representatives to represent them.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

The calls/letters were coming in somewhere between 8:1 and 1000:1 against, depending on who you listen to. Just how far does telling your constituents, "You elected me for my superior judgment and intellect" go, hmm?

True, but don't forget Federalist 10:

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.


The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose