Tweet
I’ve seen a lot of liberals try to claim that health care could still pass even if Martha Coakley loses to Scott Brown next Tuesday. They offer up three scenarios:
1) The House and Senate sneak in the compromise bill being worked out right now before Brown gets seated. This probably has the most potential of the three, but Sam Stein did a tick-tock of the timing, and it doesn’t seem to add up. Ping-ponging the bill means getting the deal scored by CBO, passing the House and then jumping through the Parliamentary hoops to pass the Senate. And they’d have to do all that by January 29, seen as the date any new Senator would be sworn in. With that kind of time frame, they’d have to pass something without the CBO analysis, or waive the three-day rule for putting legislation on the Internet which Pelosi and Hoyer just touted yesterday. Doesn’t seem likely.
2) The House just passes the Senate bill. I’d be absolutely shocked if Pelosi could find 218 votes for this purpose. This would mean no excise tax deal, no deal on exchanges, the same poor affordability targets, AND the Nelson amendment, which would send Stupak and his cadres for the hills. Someone would have to write on a list the names of the 218 members in the House who would vote for that. Even the House members most invested in getting something, anything done are still saying that the Senate bill couldn’t pass the House.
3) Go back to Olympia Snowe and see what she wants. That would wind you up with a bill that could be worse than the Senate bill, at which point you get all the same problems. Plus, listen to Harry Reid on this one – Olympia Snowe wasn’t interested in coming around, ultimately.
Really, the best-case scenario for Democrats in the event of a loss would be that it’s a close loss. Within 1/2 of 1%, to be exact, which is the threshold whereby the challenger can call for a recount, a process which would take several weeks, allowing Democrats to temporarily hold their 60-vote majority long enough for passage.
Stein is right with this close:
That Democrats have been forced to game out such scenarios is a testament not just to the value of the election, but the poor campaign that Coakley has run. It’s also caused more than a bit of angina within the party.
“People in Massachusetts are freaking out,” said one commonwealth pol. “Just as people nationally are freaking out.”
UPDATE: I think Barney Frank puts it pretty plainly: “If Scott Brown wins, it’ll kill the health bill.” He was quite critical of Coakley in the article.
11 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I respectfully disagree. Coakley’s campaign has been irrelevant. This is a referendum on the Democratic leadership in Washington. People outside of the bubble are very very unhappy, that is why Coakley is in trouble.
agreed — even more, it appears to be a referendum on the health care bill.
Best of all possible worlds.
The bill is killed and the Republicans can be blamed.
I was thinking along these lines, if Coakley loses, the R’s can be blamed for obstructing health care. Plus I wonder if that won’t help the D’s in November.
Barack Obama has close to 60% approval rating in a poll where Coakley is down by 4.
Please to explain.
Because the Democratic congress has a %42 approval rating and for some reason people have not connected that Obama has been trying to undermine the public option piece of the health care bill the entire time. They blame the entire thing on congress. Even though when somebody in congress tries to take a stand Rahm takes their legs out.
Kill the bill, dammit! That will FUCK Rahm.
: )
David Im seeing him below or around 50. It has been a while since he has had a 60 approval rating.
Oh sorry you must mean 60 approval in MA–my apology
You lost the argument when you advanced the idea that the democrats are assured your votes in any situation . Are you reassessing that position ?
A symbolic loss or win , a symbolic ultimatum and the president’s health bill in the cross hairs !
With the symbolic value of the loss of Kennedy’s seat as a wake up call as well as the likely defeat of the HCR as now offered we would be offering an ultimatum, which we could actually deliver on, to the status quo.
They can still do the right thing and insist on a strong public option which house progressives promised to do or face the consequences !
Sorry I didn’t see your question yesterday, at this point you may not check back, but just in case you do I figured I owed you an answer.
I have lived in MA for nearly all of the last 25 years. I am not basing my opinion (and it is only my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt) on any polls or objective data of any kind, simply my observations among friends and colleagues. So this is strictly anecdotal and quite possibly as irrelevant as Coakley’s campaign strategy ; )
I run with a liberal politically well-informed crowd, but we all fall well short of being political activists. We pay attention and we vote. We always have. It is unwise to underestimate the stupidity of the Democratic Party machine in MA. With power comes complacency and arrogance, and when that arrogance has peaked it resulted in two Republican governors (over the 25 years I’m familiar with).
In the first case, the Dem machine got behind an unpopular university president who was loudly and proudly pro-life. I worked with a guy at that time who was about 70, Catholic, a life-long MA Democrat who was also pro-life and he was thrilled. Me and all of my 20-something friends were horrified. Operation Rescue was making headlines on a regular basis harrassing woman at clinics and we simply could not comprehend how the Dems could be so stupid. We all voted for the Republican Bill Weld. Throughout that campaign, we were calling each other up, talking politics, asking each other what we were going to do, and in the end chose policy over party.
In the second case, the Dem machine hand-picked a woman who was very close to the MA congressional leadership and the scuttlebutt was that she was going to do the bidding of that leadership. It was blatantly corrupt and she had no natural base of support among the voting public, and so we woke up to Governor MitWit. No one really wanted him, but no one wanted her either. No one really talked about that election, there wasn’t much to say. There was no buzz, just a glum realization that once again the presumption of the Dem machine had cost us liberals an election.
Last year, everyone I knew was talking about Obama. My enthusiasm was not as great as theirs, I didn’t trust him after FISA and for that reason I didn’t vote for him. But, everyone was talking about the election, everyone was hopeful and excited and just so damned relieved that the Bush administration was coming to an end.
So now, over the past month, as we’ve gotten together with our friends I’m having flashbacks to the MitWit debacle. At one holiday gathering one friend simply muttered, “lets not talk about it”, and everyone mumbled in agreement. No one I know is happy. If you asked them, they would probably claim to “approve” of him, but they are not happy. There is no excitement, no buzz, not even conversations about “so, what are you gonna do”?
FWIW, I expect Coakley will win. But it shouldn’t even be close. The fact that it is close, at least from what I can tell among my cohort, is that the Democrats have been a profound disappointment. We didn’t get the change we were promised. Everyone knows it. People here loved Teddy. We trusted him and we genuinely mourned his passing. He cannot be replaced and it is obvious to all of us that Obama is no Teddy. Neither is Reid, Pelosi, Kerry or any of the rest of them and Coakley isn’t either.
So, when I say that that I respectfully disagree with Stein, I mean it. I disagree with him. Simply that. He probably has better data than I do, but I don’t think Coakley’s lack of popularity has anything to do with her campaign.
Sorry for getting long-winded. It’s pretty much of a dead thread though and you did ask. You are of course, welcome to tell me I’m all wet ; )