Last Friday, the House's passage of a revised financial bailout bill capped a week of intense discussion about what congressional actions were needed to help remedy the country's recent economic troubles. An examination of the House and Senate roll calls on the bill indicates that politics helped to inform many congressmen's and senators' votes; for instance, many members in competitive districts voted against the bill because of the strong public outcry against it. But how will votes for or against the bill be interpreted in the long run? At this point, it is hard to know whether those who supported or opposed the bill will be seen as more prescient with regards to the country’s economic course.

Research Fellow John C. Fortier

The politics of the bailout package are complicated. The bill was seen as a must-pass by elites and congressional leaders, but viewed with great skepticism by large parts of the public. The lion's share of congressional opposition came from red states and from members running in competitive races. Given the uncertainty of the course and duration of our economic troubles, these votes could have political ramifications this November or even in 2010.

Look at the opponents of the final bill. 108 House Republicans voted against the bill, over half of them from southern or southern Border States. While red state Republicans in competitive races voted against the bill in high numbers, many GOP lawmakers in safe districts oppose the bill on ideological grounds, as they and their voters have deep concerns about the approach taken.

Democratic dissent came disproportionately from freshmen, members from red states and competitive districts, and those in tough races in 2008. The most vulnerable Democratic House freshmen voted against it: Nick Lampson (Texas), Nancy Boyda (Kansas), Carol Shea-Porter (New Hampshire), and Christopher P. Carney (Pennsylvania). Recent special election winners Don Cazayoux (Louisiana) and Travis Childers (Mississipppi) also opposed the bill. The most vulnerable Democrats who voted for the bill even in its original form were Paul Kanjorski (Pennsylvania) and Jim Marshall (Georgia), with the latter acknowledging the political danger of his vote. If you look for opposition votes from safe, white, liberal Democrats in cities or suburbs, you find only a handful.

The Senate saw a similar breakdown. Of the 25 votes against the bill, only three senators, Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) hailed from states that John F. Kerry won in 2004. And the only Democratic incumbent in a competitive race, Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), voted against the bill.

As for Democratic switchers, the largest bloc was a group of 12 black caucus members and was joined by a smaller group of Hispanic Caucus Members. Three freshmen members in relatively competitive districts switched their votes: Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.), Harry E. Mitchell (Arizona) and John Yarmuth (Kentucky), taking the greatest risk of Democratic switchers.

On the Republican side, a large bloc of safe Republicans switched to support the bill at the urging of their leadership. The 25 switchers also included a few Republicans whose districts are competitive, but who are not facing significant opposition, like Patrick J. Tiberi. And a few from the northeast, who are in competitive races, but where the balance of popular opposition to the bill and the need to act to quell market turmoil is not so unfavorable as it is in some red states such as Charles W. Dent (Pennsylvania) and John R. Kuhl. Two to watch are Kuhl and Joseph Knollenberg (Michigan), who face tough races and hail from districts with economic troubles that predate our financial crisis.

Ultimately, the changes in the bill were only modestly helpful in attracting new votes. The House's shift in opinion from pressure from home district businesses and from worries that the House would be blamed for a total meltdown of the markets and our financial system provided the oomph needed to turn the vote around.

The future politics of these votes, however, is very uncertain. The passage of the bailout is by no means the end of our economic troubles. If things get worse, will those who voted for the bailout be blamed as wasting billions of dollars and not solving the crisis? Or will those who voted against the package be seen as naïve or ideological if it becomes more apparent that our economic problems are deep and need a series of interventions?

One district to watch is Pennsylvania 11 where the vote of Representative Paul Kanjorski (D) may be the clearest example of a longtime member siding with leadership and voicing establishment concerns of the need to calm markets versus a populist challenger who clearly opposes the bill. But even here the politics are uncertain, for challenger Lou Barletta's opposition to the bill was not full throated; even he noted the need to do something in the face of a crisis.

But the repercussions from votes on this bill may extend beyond the November 2008 election to the 2010 midterms. Imagine an Obama presidency still in the midst of economic doldrums as the midterm elections approach. Obama and Democrats would certainly blame the economic downturn on the Bush administration and Republican policies. But as Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton saw, by the time of the midterm elections, the economy belongs to the new president, and midterm election gains that almost always go to the out party can be magnified by economic troubles. One could imagine a populist Republican campaign that uses the bailout bill as the first of failed Democratic measures to resurrect the economy and puts marginal seat Democrats on the hot seat for their votes.

A vote of such magnitude taken in the middle of an intense campaign is extraordinary, and the effects may be felt on our politics for years to come.

John C. Fortier is a research fellow at AEI.