congress critters dilemma

[Don Quixote]

say they think that the bailout is a good thing but their constituents do not and have made it clear

if they are a senator up for reelection they can vote against it, no problem

if they are a senator not up for reelection, once more no problem, the voters will forget in a couple of years

if they are a representative and their constituents are against it but they think it is a good idea and vote for it, they are likely screwed if they vote for it
​

it is interesting that the senators can vote for or against it without a problem, but the reps are screwed if they vote their minds and their constituents are against it

oh well

 

[Good Luck]

say they think that the bailout is a good thing but their constituents do not and have made it clear

if they are a senator up for reelection they can vote against it, no problem

if they are a senator not up for reelection, once more no problem, the voters will forget in a couple of years

if they are a representative and their constituents are against it but they think it is a good idea and vote for it, they are likely screwed if they vote for it
​

it is interesting that the senators can vote for or against it without a problem, but the reps are screwed if they vote their minds and their constituents are against it

oh well

From where do you draw your conclusions that senators up for election are safer than reps? There is, of course, the combined factors of strength of incumbency combined with blind partisanship where people will vote based on name or affiliation without any regard to the candidates' history. But that plays to both houses. Do you have evidence these factors are stronger in the senate?

I do know one thing: Max Baucus has given his campaign a serious black eye in Montana. He will most likely still win because the reps don't have a seriously viable candidate running against Max. But had it been a close race like Tester v Burns, it would have put Max in serious trouble. In short, how the vote affects those running for reelection will depend on how close their respective races were before the vote. In cases where the incumbent is way ahead, they will get away with it - but that has always been the case in both houses. In close races, it could be the determining factor - again, in both houses.

Now Tester (who is not running) and Rehberg both did the right thing and vote against it. Good on them. I had little respect for either of them until now. Might even end up voting for Rehberg because his opponent supports the bailout.

 

[Don Quixote]

From where do you draw your conclusions that senators up for election are safer than reps? There is, of course, the combined factors of strength of incumbency combined with blind partisanship where people will vote based on name or affiliation without any regard to the candidates' history. But that plays to both houses. Do you have evidence these factors are stronger in the senate?

I do know one thing: Max Baucus has given his campaign a serious black eye in Montana. He will most likely still win because the reps don't have a seriously viable candidate running against Max. But had it been a close race like Tester v Burns, it would have put Max in serious trouble. In short, how the vote affects those running for reelection will depend on how close their respective races were before the vote. In cases where the incumbent is way ahead, they will get away with it - but that has always been the case in both houses. In close races, it could be the determining factor - again, in both houses.

Now Tester (who is not running) and Rehberg both did the right thing and vote against it. Good on them. I had little respect for either of them until now. Might even end up voting for Rehberg because his opponent supports the bailout.

what i said is that they can vote against it without a problem - now if they vote for it, well anything can happen if they have a decent opponent, otherwise same old same old

 

[Good Luck]

Sorry, your posts are confusing.

You ended the first one with:

...it is interesting that the senators can vote for or against it without a problem , but the reps are screwed if they vote their minds and their constituents are against it...

So again I ask if you have evidence (poll, statistical analysis, etc.) that indicates if an incumbent senator up for reelection votes against the will of their constituency, they are any safer from the voter's wrath than representatives? I am not saying you are wrong, but then I see no reason such would be true. An incumbent rep with a huge lead will not lose regardless of their vote. Ditto a senator with a large lead. And on the other side of the coin, an incumbent from either house, and in a close race, could well lose if they vote against the will of their constituency. And that goes whether their constituency wanted the bill to pass, or if they wanted it to fail. It was a big vote, a big, high profile issue, and opinions both ways are running strong.

What surprises me the most on the whole thing is how opinions for and against are not following typical partisan divisions. Party affiliation and/or political philosophy, and opinion on the bail out seem to have a very low, probably statistically insignificant correlation.

 

[Don Quixote]

Sorry, your posts are confusing.

You ended the first one with:

So again I ask if you have evidence (poll, statistical analysis, etc.) that indicates if an incumbent senator up for reelection votes against the will of their constituency, they are any safer from the voter's wrath than representatives? I am not saying you are wrong, but then I see no reason such would be true. An incumbent rep with a huge lead will not lose regardless of their vote. Ditto a senator with a large lead. And on the other side of the coin, an incumbent from either house, and in a close race, could well lose if they vote against the will of their constituency. And that goes whether their constituency wanted the bill to pass, or if they wanted it to fail. It was a big vote, a big, high profile issue, and opinions both ways are running strong.

What surprises me the most on the whole thing is how opinions for and against are not following typical partisan divisions. Party affiliation and/or political philosophy, and opinion on the bail out seem to have a very low, probably statistically insignificant correlation.

touche

i should have been clearer - what i should have said is that they could vote against it without a problem and for it if their constituents were for it

also, the senators not up for reelection could do what they want due to the short memory of voters

on another side, will it work - only time will tell