Did health reform cost Democrats the House?
A forthcoming paper in American Politics Research suggests that health reform may have cost the Democrats their House majority in the 2010 election, by making them seem more ideologically distant from constituents in swing districts.
Brendan Nyhan, Eric McGhee, John Sides, Seth Masket and Steven Greene analyzed how Democratic supporters of the health reform law fared in the last round of House elections. They found that, on average, “the vote share of Democrats who supported health care reform was 5.8 points lower than that of the most comparable Democrats who opposed the bill.”
If those Democrats had voted against the law - and flipped that 5.8 percent in the opposite direction - the party would have netted 25 more seats. And that would have been enough to keep the Democrats in a majority.
The authors also probe how, exactly, the health reform law turned voters against some Democrats: It made voters feel more ideologically distant from their representatives. Conservative voters were likelier to view a Democrat who voted for health reform as more liberal than one who opposed it:
Controversial roll call votes—or, more likely, the publicity that they generate in the news media and in campaign communications—can shift constituents’ perceptions of their representative’s ideology. In 2010, Democratic supporters of health care reform were perceived as further to the ideological left, which made them seem more distant from most of their constituents, especially independents and Republicans.
Jonathan Chait questions whether whether these findings indict the health reform law as the culprit in the Democrats’ loss of power. Even if members had voted against the health reform law, he argues, voters may have looked to a separate Congressional vote as evidence of legislators leaning too far to the left.
“If the House had voted down health care reform, some other issue would have become the ‘big vote’ and, probably, have become the proxy for out-of-control liberalism,” he writes. “There could have been renewed attention to stimulus, cap and trade or many new things.”
- Spam
- Obscene
- Duplicate
Blog Contributors
Ezra Klein

Ezra Klein is the editor of Wonkblog and a columnist at the Washington Post, as well as a contributor to MSNBC and Bloomberg. His work focuses on domestic and economic policymaking, as well as the political system that’s constantly screwing it up. He really likes graphs, and is on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook. E-mail him here.
Neil Irwin

Neil Irwin is a Washington Post columnist and the economics editor of Wonkblog. Each weekday morning his Econ Agenda column reports and explains the latest trends in economics, finance, and the policies that shape both. He is the author of “The Alchemists: Three Central Bankers and a World on Fire.” Follow him on Twitter here. Email him here.
Sarah Kliff

Sarah Kliff covers health policy, focusing on Medicare, Medicaid and the health reform law. She tries to fit in some reproductive health and education policy coverage, too, alongside an occasional hockey reference. Her work has appeared in Newsweek, Politico, and the BBC. She is on Twitter and Facebook.
Brad Plumer

Brad Plumer is a reporter focusing on energy and environmental issues. He was previously an associate editor at The New Republic. Follow him on Twitter. Email him here.
Dylan Matthews

Dylan Matthews covers taxes, poverty, campaign finance, higher education, and all things data. He has also written for The New Republic, Salon, Slate, and The American Prospect. Follow him on Twitter here. Email him here.











Loading...
Comments