The more reliant a senator on contributions from the financial sector, the greater the likelihood that s/he voted against cramdown; facing the electorate in 2010 also seemed to drive senators into the arms of the ABA—likely fearing opponents’ charge that cramdown would increase interest rates. And did the severity of the foreclosure crisis matter to senators? Not so much. Once the bankers get their arms around a senator, it’s hard to pry him loose—no matter the demand for mortgage relief at home. If we look only at Democrats, the story is slightly different. True, reliance on contributions from the financial sector is a strong predictor of Democrats’ cramdown votes, but so too is the state of the housing sector. Democratic senators from the hardest hit states (think Nevada, California, Florida) flocked to cramdown; Democrats from states less hard hit (think the Dakotas and Montana) resisted.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Not much beyond misfortune, according to the Monkey Cage: