Although most Democrats serve districts that support a public option, the concern is not that people will be angry that they supported one. The concern is countering the following talking point:

Some House Democrats have expressed reservations about voting for a health bill that includes a public option if the Senate was never going to consider a government-backed insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. They feared that Republicans would turn such a vote into an issue in 2010, saying that Democrats voted to turn the health care system into a government-run operation and that the Senate wouldn’t even consider such an extreme scheme.

It’s fairly easy to accuse Democrats of being extreme if they vote for something that doesn’t ultimately pass, even if what they voted for is popular in the abstract. I personally think this fear is overblown. For one thing, the Republicans are going to make some attack along these lines no matter what happens. So, you’re really worried about an issue of incremental credibility. It’s like trimming your votes on procedural matters to make your overall voting score less ‘liberal.’ They’re going to call you an extreme socialist anyway, so what’s the point?

Secondly, the more important consideration should be whether your constituents are going to like the legislation. If they like it, they won’t be too impressed with criticisms that you advocated something even stronger.

A lot of the struggle to get Democrats to behave well has nothing to do with lobbyists and corporate campaign donations. A lot of it is just a struggle to get them to overcome their fear of Republican attacks.