Five House Democrats to watch on health care

Mar 16, 2010 — Washington Post

Chris Cillizza

1. There is only one thing that matters this week in the political world: whether or not House Democrats can find the 216 votes they need to pass the health care bill before President Obama heads out of the country on Sunday. The original House bill passed by the narrowest of margins -- 220 votes -- meaning that every vote counts this time around.

We spoke to a handful of Republican and Democratic strategists and here are the five members likely to come under the most intense pressure from both sides in this final week of lobbying.

1) John Boccieri: The Ohio freshman, who voted "no" on the bill in November, has two competing (and large) constituencies to consider -- older voters who are wary about any changes to the health care bill and working class families who would likely feel the most positive impact from the bill. He also faces a serious reelection fight from businessman Jim Renacci (R).

2) Scott Murphy: Murphy, elected in a 2009 special election in the Albany-area 20th district, ran -- and won -- on a promise to work for the president's agenda in Washington. As a result, his initial "no" vote baffled many party strategists.

3) Jason Altmire: The freshman Democrat from western Pennsylvania publicly hemmed and hawed for weeks before eventually deciding not to vote for the bill. That initial uncertainty has Democratic leaders convinced they can turn him around although Republicans have recruited a former U.S. attorney to challenge him in the fall.

4) Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.): Dahlkemper's personal circumstances could well affect her vote as she has lost both of her parents in the last two months and, as a result, end-of-life issues are very much on her mind, according to knowledgeable sources. But, Dahlkemper is pro-life and remains skeptical about voting for the abortion language in the Senate bill.

5) Tom Perriello (Va.): Perriello has gained a reputation as one of the White House's favorite new members thanks to his willingness to back not only cap and trade but also health care despite the swing nature of his 5th district. Given the reelection storm that appears to be building against Democrats, Perriello could well switch to "no" but in doing so he would need to find a way to explain to voters what would look like an open and shut case of political flip-floppery.

ALSO READ: Pollster Doug Schoen's piece on the political impact of switching from "no" to "yes".

2. Liberal groups will spend approximately $11 million on television ads in 45 Democratic-held districts between today and the expected House vote on health care this weekend, according to a source familiar with the strategy. The effort is an attempt to combat the heavy spending by a slew of conservative-aligned groups urging members of Congress to scrap the bill and start over.

"Members should know that when they are attacked by hack inside-the-Beltway rackets like Americans for Prosperity, and when they do the right thing, we will have their backs," said a Democratic operative close to the health care effort.

There will be two major thrusts of advertising. The first will come from Americans for Stable and Quality Care -- a broad coalition of groups that includes PhRMA and the liberal Families United among others. The group will sponsor two basic ads -- both positive in nature -- in a total of 45 districts. One, which will run in districts represented by Democrats who voted for the original legislation, will tout the immediate positive changes (pre-existing conditions etc.) in the bill. The other, running in seats held by Democrats who voted against the bill in November, will include language that many Democrats say encapsulates their best argument -- that the public will be eligible for the same care as members of Congress.

The other major player will be a group led by Health Care for America Now (HCAN) as well as two major labor unions -- Service Employees International Union and the American Federation for State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). That coalition will run ads in 16 Democratic-districts hammering insurance companies and urging Members not to give in to them by voting against the bill.

3. In the last four days, two new polls have come out that paint VERY different pictures of Sen. Arlen Specter's (D) relative vulnerability this fall. On Monday came a poll from Susquehanna Polling and Research that showed former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) leading Specter 42 percent to 36 percent. Those results come close to directly contradicting a Research 2000 survey sponsored by the liberal Daily Kos blog released last Friday that showed Specter ahead 47 percent to 41 percent. Those numbers come on top of a Quinnipiac University poll released earlier this month that put Specter ahead of Toomey by a 49 percent to 42 percent margin. What gives?

Polling, as we have often written in this space, is part science and part art. Figuring out what the electorate will look like this November is a guessing game particularly given the huge surge in Democratic registration in the 2008 presidential election. Given that, the best way to assess the state of the race is to take one BIG step back and look at a collection of all the data on the race. That process shows Toomey with a lead of about two points on Specter, which seems about right to us. (Thanks to Real Clear Politics for their great polling aggregation tool!) The simple fact is that the race -- either the primary between Specter and Rep. Joe Sestak or the general election -- doesn't exist in the minds of most voters yet because neither candidate is on television or directly communicating with voters in any meaningful way. It's hard to imagine then that Specter has moved his number upwards in any significant way. Specter looks like a favorite -- albeit it a slight one -- in the primary but it's far too early to draw conclusions about the race in November.

4. Appointed Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet's (D) first electoral test comes later today when Democrats gather at their precinct caucuses to choose their preferred candidate. While the caucuses are non-binding -- the only thing they govern is whose name appears first on the ballot -- the Bennet forces were already downplaying expectations in advance of the vote, noting that former House speaker Andrew Romanoff, who is challenging the incumbent, has spent more than a decade assiduously courting the very people who will attend the caucuses.

And, they rightly note, that winning the Colorado caucuses have been a poor indicator of primary winners for decades. In 2004, then state Attorney General Ken Salazar (D) lost the caucuses to Mike Miles but swamped Miles in the primary; ditto on the Republican side where beer magnate Pete Coors lost the caucuses to former representative Bob Schaffer but crushed the former congressman in the primary.

Still, a convincing caucus win by Romanoff would likely draw significant national attention as it would feed into two existing media narratives: the anti-incumbent sentiment in the country and the waning political power of the Obama White House. Republicans, too, will head to the caucuses tonight to choose between a handful of potential Senate nominees led by former lieutenant governor Jane Norton and former state senator Tom Wiens.

5. A new poll conducted for North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall's (D) Senate campaign casts her as the clear frontrunner in the May 4 primary fight. Marshall takes 31 percent as compared to five percent for former state senator Cal Cunningham and four percent for attorney Ken Lewis in the survey, which was done by Celinda Lake.

Some (most?) of that lead is rightly ascribed to name identification. Marshall has been in her current post since the mid 1990s and ran unsuccessfully for Senate in 2002 while Cunningham and Lewis are newer to the political scene in the Tarheel State. Roughly seven in ten Democratic primary voters knew enough about Marshall to offer an opinion -- her favorable rating outstripped her unfavorable one by 29 points, according to Lake -- while just half of the primary electorate recognized Cunningham.

"Cunningham would need to use most of his campaign contributions just to catch up to Marshall in name identification alone," concludes Lake in a memo detailing the poll results. Cunningham, who opted out of the race against Sen. Richard Burr (R) before ultimately reconsidering, is regarded as the favorite of the national party establishment but it remains unclear whether he can make up enough ground on Marshall to win the nod.

Burr started the 2010 election as one of Democrats' top targets but the party has struggled to find a top-tier candidate while the political climate has tilted against them.