Josh has this quote from Charlie Cook, predicting Dem losses in 2010 and some of the reasons why:
Many conservatives predictably fear -- and some downright oppose -- any expansion of government. But late last year many moderates and independents who were already frightened about the economy began to fret that Washington was taking irreversible actions that would drive mountainous deficits higher. They worried that government was taking on far more than it could competently handle and far more than the country could afford. Against this backdrop, Obama's agenda fanned fears that government was expanding too far, too fast. Before long, his strategy of letting Congress take the lead in formulating legislative proposals and thus prodding lawmakers to take ownership in their outcome caused his poll numbers on "strength" and "leadership" to plummet. [emphasis Josh's]
Josh then sez:
It's not immediately clear that all voters will respond negatively to expanded government intervention in a time of acute economic distress, to put it mildly. But this part about strength and leadership has the ring of truth to me. And I suspect it's a very big part of his declining support among independents. And not just them.
I agree with Josh on the possibility that expanded government intervention might not be disastrous for Dems, particularly as it relates to healthcare reform. What I think analysts are missing in warning against an expanded role for government is that for an awful lot of Americans, economic insecurity is intrinsically connected to health insecurity. Even in those polls where people say they are satisfied with their insurance, large numbers still worry about the continued affordability of coverage, and what happens if they leave a job.
It's part of why the public option remains so popular. In a time of such economic insecurity, the idea of an government option, not dependent upon employment, and that will provide competition that will help keep the costs of private insurance premiums down is very compelling. It's pretty basic politics, actually, in a time of great economic upheaval--people look to government to provide some security. And real, comprehensive healthcare reform can provide that.
How it became so chancey to listen to the people instead of the Village is still a little mysterious to me. But that's where we're at, and this leads to another in a long list of "what Digby said" conclusions:
Democrats Believe that the best way to show strength and leadership is to punch hippies. They've believed this for decades now, and the result has been to discredit liberalism and validate Republicans. (But hey, that seems to be the ultimate goal of the ruling class, so you can't say it isn't one of the things that "works.")
....
But here in America 2009, the country is a little bit more complicated. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Democrats tried a different tack and punched somebody else instead. Like greedy CEOs. Or Freepers. Or ... Republicans. I wonder if maybe they might just get the strength and leadership numbers up if they unapologetically passed the agenda on which they ran and then went to the people in the next elections and stood behind it.
Hear, hear, but the question needs to be more direct: would Obama get his strength and leadership numbers up if he directly took on the insurance industry and the Republicans? I suspect so, and I suspect that the best, most popular way to do that is by embracing a strong, trigger-free, public option.