What Happens to the Democrats That Voted Against The Health Care Bill?

A Huffington Post Article lists the 34 Democrats in the House that voted against the health care bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/democrats-who-voted-again_n_508484.html

I wonder what the consequences will be for the Democrats that voted against the bill? If there aren’t any consequences, then how will Pelosi maintain discpline?

Will their campaign funding dry up?
Will they face well funded opponents in the primaries?
Will they not get their parties endorsement in the primaries?

Nothing, probably. The Democrats are more concerned with controlling Republican propaganda right now.

I’m not sure what options are available to Pelosi. In the long run, some of them will get re-elected in November, and a few years from now, they’ll be taking credit for helping pass the bill and conviently forgetting they were against it.

Depends on their individual reasons, and she’s no doubt “discussed” them with each. But the Dems have never placed top priority on “toeing the line” on anything.

It depends on their district. In districts with a significant number of Republican voters, the defection may have occurred with the Speaker’s blessing. On the other hand, any defectors from solid Democratic districts may face primary challenges. However, I believe that given the timing of the HC vote it may already be too late to mount a challenge in some districts.

Presumably the ones who voted against it felt their constituents were opposed to the bill so they probably feel safe at home and only time will tell on that one.

As far as what happens in congress I suspect this may hurt them getting juicy committee assignments. Probably not much more than that.

Consequences won’t come exclusively from the party leadership, of course. They’ve also got the voters to answer to. How the voters will react will of course depend on the individual district. There seems to already be a movement to primary Stupak, even though he did vote for the bill in the end.

That will be the party reaction.

Individual voters in each district will decide how they feel about each case. Very few congress-critters took their votes on this on principle, one way or another. Virtually all of them gauged their votes on how it would play back home.

I don’t get the feeling like there would be a universal (heh) consequence.

The main reason a lot of the Dems were against the bill was that they were from swing states that were against the bill. Voting for it meant zero chance of re-election. I could see for these guys a sort of sympathetic damned if you do damned if you don’t. They need to be able to go back home and say, “I voted the way you wanted me to, I represented your opinions, there isn’t much more I can do.” I have a certain amount of respect for that. Not much respect for it, but some.

I’m 100% certain that if the Dem party leadership feel they can run an alternate candidate and will win, they will. And I think they have to. And I think if they know the seat is lost they’ll make a show of force by pulling support.

For the rest of them, like mentioned above, there is a special place behind the “back bench” reserved for them. Where they can sit and pretend to be a Democrat.

This. The analysis I heard said that there were more Dems willing to vote for it than necessary, and that once the final count was established Pelosi gave those most at risk permission to vote against. No penalty for these guys at all. I don’t know about the ones who really were against it. I hope there is at least some cutting of goodies from Washington to those districts.

I saw a chart at 538.com which showed that essentially all the Democrats whose districts went for Obama voted for the bill, all the Democrats from districts where Obama got less than 40% of the vote voted against it (IIRC there were 12 of them), and the ones from districts where Obama got 40-50% split 17-13 in favor. IOW, most of the “no” voters were probably voting the way most of their constituents would have preferred them to.

So, it seems fairly unlikely that any of those “no” voters are likely to be replaced by significantly more liberal Democrats in the next election (even if a liberal were to run a successful primary challenge, he/she would have an uphill battle in the general election).

They wind up on Obama, Reid, and Pelosi’s sh1t list. What OBR will actually be able to do to them depends on just how much pressure can be brought to bear.

That’s the Republican approach. Don’t project.

Did any of them vote against it because they felt it didn’t go far enough?

I don’t think the vote was as important as people are making it out to be. Typical Washington theater. Pelosi always had the votes. It would be silly for her to burn bridges with Dems who didn’t support it. Reps from districts where it was unpopular are given political cover to vote against it… and if later it becomes popular as liberals hope they can continue to represent their constituents and become a supporter. I would be surprised to see anyone lose a primary because of their vote here.

Lynch. Kucinich has in the past but he went Aye this time.