Balkinization: Representatives in Safe Seats, Not Vulnerable Ones, Killed the Bailout Bill

Representatives in Safe Seats, Not Vulnerable Ones, Killed the Bailout Bill

Rick Pildes

One of the instant myths being created about Congress' defeat of the bailout bill is that members facing close contests this fall were forced to cast a "tough vote" and, in order to protect their electoral prospects, voted against the bill. But this is misleading and it assigns short-term, self-interested electoral calculations for the depth of the resistance. Only 30 negative votes came from members in vulnerable seats. True, this means 79% of those in vulnerable seats voted against. But there were 198 votes against from those in safe seats, which is right around 50% of those in safe seats, and while those in vulnerable seats might be thought to have provided the marginal difference, those votes would be irrelevant if there were not such widespread opposition. Put another way, if those 30 no votes from vulnerable seats were split the same way as the votes from safe seats, there would still have been 213 votes against the bill. It's important not to lose sight of how few House seats are actually vulnerable and how few House elections are competitive.

I take the data here from http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/swing-district-congressmen-doomed.html, and I think Professor David Canon for pointing me in this direction.

Posted 7:49 AM by Rick Pildes [link]

Comments:

At present it looks as though the whole exercise was a feint to draw attention away from the $630 billion Bush pumped into the global financial system yesterday. Still, thanks, Prof. Pildes, for the keen eye on the numbers.

# posted by

Robert Link : 10:02 AM

I've lived in three different congressional districts over the last seven years. My reps during that time:

Mike Thompson (D-CA-1), a moderate.

Doc Hastings (R-WA-4), a reptilian right-winger.

Barbara Lee (D-CA-9), the only member of Congress to vote against the AUMF after 911.

All three of them voted against the bailout, and all three have safe seats.

And as for me, I just don't see any reason to do anything drastic before the election. Bush is the lamest duck in history, and the chances for a Democratic victory in the coming elections are good. OTH, I have a lot of respect for Barney Franks, Rahm Emanuel, and Nancy Pelosi. Then again, I don't really care about economics that much.

# posted by

Charles Gittings : 10:54 AM

Put another way, if those 30 no votes from vulnerable seats were split the same way as the votes from safe seats, there would still have been 213 votes against the bill.

With 213 votes against, the bill would have passed, 220-213. Using the numbers reported at fivethirtyeight.com, here's my own estimate, assuming that members of each party in swing districts had divided in the same proportion as members of their own party in safe districts. I think this is a somewhat better way to look at the numbers.

Safe district Republicans: 62 yes votes out of 178 = 35%.
Vulnerable Republicans: 35% of 20 = 7 yes votes.
Safe district Democrats: 135 yes votes out of 217 = 62%.
Vulnerable Democrats: 62% of 18 = 11 yes votes.
Totals: 215 yes, 218 no.

The bill would have been defeated. So I think Prof. Pildes is essentially right.

# posted by

Bob Richard : 11:04 AM

Robert Link said...

At present it looks as though the whole exercise was a feint to draw attention away from the $630 billion Bush pumped into the global financial system yesterday.

I think Robert meant this.

Since the fed was able to put liquidity into the credit markets without the $700BN bailout, one is left to wonder what the bailout is meant to alleviate. It would look as though the problem of liquidity in the credit market can be eased temporarily without buying up bad mortgage debts (bearing in mind the bailout is temporary as well).

People have speculated that for the fed to buy up bad mortgage debt (so-called 'subprime loans') isn't necessarily a bad thing, since a significant percentage of those loans won't go bad. In particular, once the fed buys them, the fed is then free to change those mortgages into fixed-rate loans that many borrowers will be able to keep making payments on. I think this is what some mean when they say that the taxpayer can actually profit from the having the fed buy up bad mortgage debt.

However, if the fed is able to make money on these loans, then why buy them? Why doesn't wall street keep the loans if money can be made on them?

# posted by

John : 1:46 PM

Here's an alternative (partial) explanation of the votes for and against: Finance Sector Gave 51 Percent More to House Bailout Backers.

# posted by

Bob Richard : 2:37 PM

Another interesting point, those who voted for the bailout received, on average, 54% more money from banks and financiers than those who voted against it: Read more here

# posted by

Victory Garden : 6:47 PM

HD kaliteli porno izle ve boşal.
Bayan porno izleme sitesi.
Bedava ve ücretsiz porno izle size gelsin.
Liseli kızların Bedava Porno ve Türbanlı ateşli hatunların sikiş filmlerini izle.
Siyah karanlık odada porno yapan evli çift.
harika Duvar Kağıtları bunlar
tamamen ithal duvar kağıdı olanlar var

# posted by

Osman Atarci : 9:13 AM

I don’t need a friend who changes when I change and who nods when I nod; my shadow does that much better.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya

# posted by

Unknown : 12:03 PM