The Senate had a roll call vote on the Buffett Rule today. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to vote for it. Mark Pryor of Arkansas was the only Democrat to vote against it. Polling shows that the Buffett Rule is popular almost across the board.
Nearly three-quarters – 72% – of Americans say they support the idea, according to a CNN survey of 1,015 Americans, including 910 registered voters.
While the proposal was favored more heavily by Democrats (90%), people who make less than $50,000 a year (79%), and people who live in urban areas (79%), a majority of all groups supported it, except for those who identify with the tea party movement and those who consider themselves conservatives.
Tea party supporters opposed the proposal 58% to 40%. Conservatives opposed it 49% to 51%, but people who identified as Republicans supported it 53% to 46%.
I am curious about the motivations of the two defectors. Susan Collins isn’t too hard to explain. She represents Maine. Maine isn’t exactly a liberal bastion, but it still has New England sensibilities. Voting for the Buffett Rule is a good way for Collins to avoid a campaign issue later on.
But what about Mark Pryor? Yes, Arkansas (in the Era of Obama) is a deep red state, but even conservatives are split roughly 50-50 on the Buffett Rule. If 90% of Democrats support the bill, 69% of independents support the bill, and 53% of Republicans support the bill, then the bill is popular even in a place like Arkansas. It might be a closer call there than the national numbers indicate, but it’s still an easy vote. Or, it should be.
And here’s the thing. The national Democratic Party isn’t the greatest fit for Arkansas. The party is way out of step with the social values of the people down there. What does a Democratic politician have to offer that might make them preferable to a Republican? Pro-business policies and favorable tax treatment for millionaires? It seems to me that Arkansas is a poor state that suffers from below average educational attainment and subpar health outcomes. Populism just seems like such a natural way for a Democrat to get past all the distractions about God and guns and gays, and actually talk to people where they live. But the model there, which has been very successful until a black president entered the Oval Office, is to follow the DLC/Blue Dog model pioneered by the Clintons. It seems like the business community down there still likes the Democrats and is willing to let them run things if only they will behave like Blanche Lincoln or Mike Ross or Vic Snyder…or Mark Pryor. And, you know, it works until it doesn’t.
It just seems strange to me. If I’m a Democrat in the Deep South, I’m going to talk to people about how they’ve been getting screwed by elites. I can’t imagine how I could expect to win by serving those elites. If people want a social conservative who will protect millionaires, they will normally vote for the GOP candidate. Right?
I can only assume that Mark Pryor cast his vote with his reelection prospects in mind. I just don’t get his reasoning.
