Apparently, Nate Silver No Longer Believes Liberals Are "Batshit Crazy"

Ben Smith's essay which asserts that passage of the healthcare bill will vindicate Rahm Emanuel's dismissal of liberals has triggered responses from numerous bloggers (see mine here).  Nate Silver's reaction interests me because he once described liberals as "batshit crazy" who challenged White House weakness on progressive aspects of the bill.

Now, Silver describes liberal protest as a rational reaction to President Obama's constituents who want him to fight passionately for their interests (I made the same point a long time ago).  Silver still agrees that the Senate bill is better than "nothing," but he has retreated from his heavy-handed comments regarding progressive protest:

Personally, I think the reason for the increase in support is mostly this: the Democratic leadership, and particularly President Obama, are now fighting for this bill tooth and nail. They didn't necessarily have to do this; they could have thrown in the towel, passed off some bipartisan crap that didn't do much to help the uninsured, and called it a day. That's what Rahm Emanuel wanted to do, as Chris Bowers points out. But that isn't what Obama did: instead, he's gone all-in on the thing, potentially staking his Presidency on the outcome. Liberals like the idea of being the scrappy underdog -- being the fighter -- and Obama, after a strangely aloof performance on the health care bill throughout 2009, has been fighting the good fight. . . .

The lesson for the White House, I think, is that liberals (like any other voters) react as much to tone as to substance. A bill might not meet every objective on the liberal checklist, but so long as you're Fighting Like Hell for it, liberals are usually going to be willing to fight for you too.

My Take
Liberals, whom Silver previously described as "batshit crazy," always wanted more "fight" from the White House -- although I believe that Sliver overstates the role of this fight in shifting liberal support. Liberals have also compromised now that all other options have expired. That is an integral part of politics and social movement activity.

Stunning News: White House Might Actually Release a Specific Position on Healthcare Reform

The White House recently sent out invitations for yet another round of talks regarding healthcare reform. A few bloggers -- and now mainstream media sources -- have noticed that the invitation includes the following language: "[W]e will post online the text of a proposed health insurance reform package" (emphasis added). If this in fact happens, it would represent the first concrete and specific legislative position on healthcare reform by the White House.

Many critics have faulted the White House for not taking specific positions during earlier stages of the reform process. Other commentators believe that White House leadership is essential to break the deadlock and to reach a compromise between the disparate House and Senate bills.

Perhaps, the White House has now stepped up to the plate. Or maybe this was the strategy all along -- for the White House to remain stealth until all of the "bloodshed" happened in the House and Senate and in public discourse. The merits of this possible strategy are certainly debatable.

Note: I first read about this last week on Nate Silver's blog. Ezra Klein reported it in the Washington Post today.

Nate Silver Calls Progressives "Batshit Crazy"; Readers Turn the Table

Nate Silver, host of the popular political blog FiveThirtyEight, has written an essay that describes progressives who oppose the watered-down healthcare legislation pending in the Senate as "batshit crazy." Silver argues that the proposed legislation would substantially reduce healthcare costs for most American families.



Fortunately, Silver's readers have turned the table on him. Most of the reader comments that accompany the article offer scathing criticism of Silver's analysis. One striking defect in Silver's analysis lies in the fact that he fails to take into consideration the removal of the public plan (and now the Medicare buy-in) from the proposed legislation. Despite the fact that President Obama touted the public plan as a cost-cutting measure, Silver argues that the failure to implement the plan "shouldn't change [his] numbers much." Many of the readers, however, view Silver merely as a "cheerleader" for the White House position that "something" (however flawed) must get passed.



Meanwhile, Howard Dean, a medical doctor and respected progressive voice on healthcare reform (whom President Obama skipped over as a pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services) has blasted the Senate measure and encourages Democrats to "kill" the bill and start the reconciliation process in the House of Representatives. I suspect that some Democrats will agree with Dean -- even if the bill passes in its current form.





See also:



Obama Falsely Claims that the Senate Healthcare Bill Matches His Campaign Promises



Criticizing President Obama Is Pragmatic



Ezra Klein's "Pink=Blue=Colors" Logic Regarding Healthcare Reform



Rahm Emanuel Tells Liberals To Kiss His Arse



Liberals Battle White House Over Healthcare Reform



White House Shows Its True Colors on Healthcare Reform



Irrational Robert Gibbs Says Howard Dean Is Irrational



Salon's Glenn Greenwald Says: Blame Obama, Rather Than Lieberman



Why Is Obama Still Protecting Lieberman?



I Wrote This In October 2008. . . .

Investor's Business Daily: Shoddy Healthcare "Poll"

Today, Investor's Business Daily released a poll that purports to demonstrate that 2/3 of doctors oppose healthcare reform and that 45% of them would consider closing their medical practice if the reform passes. The poll contradicts many recent surveys that show strong support among doctors for healthcare reform -- including passage of a public plan option.

Why does the IBD poll differ so greatly from other recent polls? The problem lies in the pollster's methodology.

Earlier today, a reader sent me a copy of the poll, but I was too busy to write a response. Fortunately, Nate Silver and Media Matters have taken up the task, which minimizes the amount of time required to dissect this partisan hatchet job.

Here is Silver's analysis:

1. The survey was conducted by mail, which is unusual. [Dissenting Justice: It is also unreliable. With a mail-in survey it is more difficult to prevent multiple responses from one individual or to make sure that only the target sample (doctors) complete the survey.]

2. At least one of the questions is blatantly biased: "Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?" Holy run-on-sentence, Batman. A pollster who asks a question like this one is not intending to be objective.

3. As we learned during the Presidential campaign -- when, among other things, they had John McCain winning the youth vote 74-22 -- the IBD/TIPP polling operation has literally no idea what they're doing. . . .

4. They say, somewhat ambiguously: "Responses are still coming in." This is also highly unorthodox. [Dissenting Justice: It also makes the poll unreliable. No one knows how the full tally will look without a basis for projecting the results.]

5. There is virtually no disclosure about methodology. For example, IBD doesn't bother to define the term "practicing physician". . . .Nor do they explain how their randomization procedure worked, provide the entire question battery, or anything like that.

Media Matters adds some other tidbits about IBD:

Reading Investor's Business Daily editorials can have something of a cathartic effect. After doggedly researching and fact-checking the dubiously nuanced claims of more sophisticated misinformers, it can be sometimes fun to take a (brief) dip into their troubled fantasy land where even the most fevered conspiracy theories can leap from the pages of FreeRepublic and get their brief, shining moment in the sun. Consider that IBD has implausibly claimed that the House health care bill would outlaw private insurance, absurdly claimed that Colombian terrorists had an inside line to President Obama's campaign, and outright racistly claimed that Obama would put the interests of his "tribe" ahead of national interests.

Be careful reading. And as always, consider the source!