The Alleged "Will" Of The People

Far be it from me to put myself on the same playing field as Nate Silver, but I have to say that I have been talking about this same thing for months now.

Reasonable minds can come to the conclusion that the bill is bad policy, and people are also 100 percent within their rights to believe that the bill might be bad for them for self-interested reasons (if they make greater than $200,000 per year and would be subject to the increase in the payroll tax, for instance.)

With due respect.....the debate over health care is not playing out like the one in elite circles of public opinion, in which Ezra Klein and I represent the pro-bill coalition......As this month's tracking survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation makes clear, there are a lot of beliefs the public has about the bill which are objectively wrong.

This can be true with any poll. It's all based on your source of information. Take this for example.



What proof does he have to make these claims? None, actually. But considering the fact that Limbaugh has a really big microphone and millions of people listen to him that apparently lack the ability to do any sort of fact-checking, reading, or are incapable on independent thought ( ever wonder why his drooling fanbase are called "Ditto-Heads"? ) then you begin to see how this "Will of the people" meme takes shape.

The same is true for people that only read the ghost-written dribblings on Sarah Palin's Facebook page. You need to verify your source.

Misinformation and disinformation have poisoned the healthcare debate almost as much, if not more than, the initial campaign for Barack Obama prior to his election. But, just as in that case, most Americans have the ability to see through the fog to the truth. So if you're buying into this notion that 73% of Americans don't want the healthcare reform that is literally inches away from completion, you might want to think twice about where you are getting your information.

Who Are The Supporters

Today, Nate Silver highlights two questions from an ABC News/Washington Post survey regarding how people view the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling that allows unlimited spending by corporations and unions during election seasons on ads.

The results show that the American people think this is a horrible idea.

The bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times. The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it.

I'm honestly concerned about how the mid-term elections are going to be affected by this ruling. Considering the fact that a plurality of Americans know this is a bad idea, are corporations really going to be able to sway elections the way they would like?

I've Been Thinking About This For A Few Days

Once again, Nate Silver comes through with some perspetive that some of us might not have realized.

-- If Texas were not in the Union, the Democrats would currently have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate -- or at least they would once Al Franken gets seated. This is because, in a 98-seat Senate, only 59 votes would be required to break a filibuster.
-- If Texas were not in the Union, the Republicans would operate from a significantly weakened position in the House, since the net 8-vote advantage their congressional delegation gives them in the state (they have 20 seats to the Democrats' 12) is by far their largest.
-- If Texas were not in the Union, George W. Bush would never have become President in 2000 -- not because he'd be constitutionally ineligible (Bush, despite his Texas twang, was born in posh New Haven, Connecticut). Rather, he wouldn't have had enough Electoral Votes to defeat Al Gore.
-- If Texas were not in the Union, Barack Obama would have won the Electoral College 389-147 instead of 365-173 (note that there are two fewer votes total, because there would be two fewer Senators). The vast majority of Texas' electoral votes would be redistributed to lib'rul states like California (which would go from having 55 electoral votes to 59) and New York (34 rather than 31)

So, let's get behind this Texas Secession business. Governor Rick Perry, do it. Come on. Don't be scared.