Of the 39 House Democrats who voted for Rep. Fred Upton’s Obamacare fix — a bill that the White House said would “gut” the Affordable Care Act — the party’s two representatives-turned-Senate candidates stand out most glaringly.
Most of the Democratic defectors hail from competitive districts. Not Rep. Gary Peters, whose Detroit-area seat gave President Obama a whopping 81 percent of the vote in 2012. Or Rep. Bruce Braley, whose Iowa district backed Obama by a 14-point margin over Mitt Romney. But both congressmen are running for the Senate, and the mood toward Obamacare in their home states is decidedly more critical than in their home districts.
“President Obama promised that Americans could keep their health insurance if they liked it, and Iowans think that promise should be honored. That’s why I supported today’s bill,” Braley said in a statement.“There is no such thing as a perfect law, and I am heartened to support a bipartisan effort to improve The Affordable Care Act instead of countless partisan repeal votes to destroy it,” added Peters.
In July, Peters voted with Republicans on a symbolic measure that would delay the law’s individual mandate. He voted for Obamacare in 2010 and has opposed most other GOP attempts to roll back the legislation. Braley has been a more outspoken supporter. Last October, he said GOP attempts to repeal the law were “almost shocking.” Amid the HealthCare.gov website problems, Braley vigorously defended the law in an interview on the Bill Press Show last month.
Both Peters and Braley have been favored in battleground-state Senate races for the seats of retiring Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, respectively. But Peters is facing a well-funded challenge from former state Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land. Braley doesn’t yet have a Republican opponent; right now he’s looking at a crowded field of GOP opposition.
What We're Following See More »
In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."
Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."