A quick survey of the print and web punditospheres reveals Democrats chin-pulling about the mixed message of last night's events, or wanly saying that this wasn't a referendum on Obama. Meanwhile conservatives are mostly crowing--even, somewhat delusionally, about pushing Scozzafava out in NY-23. From which I mote that progressives took the worst body blow--though if conservatives continue perkily believing that intraparty warfare is the surest route to success . . . well, welcome to Barack Obama's second term.
Still, the more I mull the "this wasn't a referendum on Obama" message, the more I wonder why Democrats are celebrating this. It's kind of a problem that this election wasn't a referendum on Obama, or more importantly, on Bush. Obama's coattails are supposed to give them the spine they need to enact sweeping change. The bad news of last night wasn't that they lost the New Jersey governorship. It's that the era of running against George Bush, or for Barack Obama, is over. They just lost the two best campaign planks they've had in decades.
Update: Senior Congressional Democrats told ABC News today that there would likely be no health care bill in 2009. I think that might answer the question.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
All in all, a very satisfactory night for Democrats.
After all the hype about a Republican surge, anything less than a sweep was a disappointment for them.
At the end of the day, in opting for the "anti-incumbent" in their respective governor's mansions, it was business as usual in NJ and VA.
And the Congress just moved a bit to the left, with Pelosi picking up another vote for national healthcare. I also think Democrats have been given a warning that they must not let next year's media narrative be dominated by talk of failure and incompetence, which makes it imperative that they face next year's midterms with the solid achievement of national healthcare under their belts.
There was no incumbent to run against in the VA govs race.
Hence my scare quotes.
Meaning, of course, that there was a candidate to run against who was from the same party as the incumbent president.
Defeat is Victory! A proud member of the Outer Party.
Defeat is Victory! A proud member of the Outer Party
Don't be too upset about NY 23rd. You guys will have another shot at Congress -- all 435 House seats and a third of the Senate -- a year from now. Although I can understand your disappointment at having to wait for another year of GDP growth until you get this shot. Timing is a bitch.
By "GDP growth" I'm assuming you mean "borrowing of s'loads of money, and then paying people to by cars and houses."
No doubt the GOP hopes most Dems are as delusional as Jasper. New Jersey went red and VA took a thirty-point swing from 2008.
Right. Because everybody knows that changes taking effect in 2013 will feel a lot different if the legislation activating them is signed on January 21st instead of December 28th.
I'm no political expert, but the consensus in DC, left and right, is that the longer it takes, the less likely the bill is to pass at all. That's why Democrats were so eager to jam it through, and why Republicans have been trying to delay as long as possible.
I'm no political expert, but the consensus in DC, left and right, is that the longer it takes, the less likely the bill is to pass at all.
Sure, this is undoubtedly true -- events, dear boy, and all that.
I just think it's been obvious since at least August (when Baucus announced the SFC markup would have to wait until after vacation -- and this, too, was greeted as the end of the world) that no bill was likely to clear Congress before very late in 2009 at the earliest. Every time national healthcare is pronounced dead, it seems to keep on chugging. It hasn't been a sprint. It's been a slog.
"the longer it takes, the less likely the bill is to pass"
Agreed with a fuller explaination. The longer it takes tells me that neither Pelosi nor Reid have the necessary votes.
Try as they might, the longer it takes tells me that they have (so far) been unable to log-roll their reluctant caucus holdouts.
Barring an unexpected development, I wonder just what additional enticement they have that they have not already tried.
And regarding unexpected developments - to my way of thinking, last nights election (including NY23) seems to move the calculus away from bigger government.
It doesn't matter what the 'narrative' is. All that matters is what moderate Democrats in both houses up for election next year saw.
Virginia was a given at least a week ago. New Jersey could have gone either way, and with enormous money and support from the President and DNC, they lost badly.
NY23 was a weird situation, and if it shows anything at all, is the floor for the RNC. They spent $900,000 on a candidate that backed out and supported the opposition, and still got 5% of the vote. Something to build on.
There is no wave to ride anymore. I don't think the Republicans have a wave, and this showed that the Democrats have none either. Next year an angry and uncertain electorate will take their frustrations out on the incumbent. The incumbent is now Democrat.
So if I were a Democrat, what would I do? Distance myself from the incumbency. Show a vigorous fight against Washington business as usual.
Health care reform as written is dead.
Derek
It doesn't matter what the 'narrative' is.
Derek: I think you're entirely wrong, here. I don't think the national media narrative matters to partisans like me (and perhaps you). But to persuadable voters it certainly makes a difference.
Anyway, what really matters is the economy -- especially how voters view their immediate prospects.
If the Republicans could have sped up the midterms to yesterday, we'd very likely be looking at a flipping of the House -- or at least very deep losses (IIRC Ronald Reagan lost nearly 30 seats in 1982).
I doubt with eighteen months or so of GDP expansion under their belts and the passage of national healthcare, Democrats will fare as badly as Reagan did back then next November.
And just for the record, I do predict that, if Republicans are successful in preventing the Democrats from passing healthcare legislation, then Democrats really are fu*%ed in 2010, because at best we're looking at only a very modest improvement in unemployment over the next twelve months, and probably a lot choppiness with respect to the economy in general.
Last night showed that there isn't a narrative. People vote locally, for candidates they feel they can trust.
There is no wind. And moderate democrats will vote accordingly on things like national healthcare. Which isn't really before them.
Derek
That is a textbook example of the chin-pulling that Megan was talking about.
Last night showed that there isn't a narrative.
Derek: What are you talking about? In the last six months there's been a growing, concerted, and energetic opposition to the policies of the Democrats on the part of conservatives. Lots of (inane, but that's neither here nor there) talk of deathcare panels, socialism, out-of-control borrowing, passport issues, and so on and so forth. And this has been widely reported by the national media.
Again, I make no claim that every voter is strongly influenced by this narrative, nor that even for those who are, it's the single most important influence -- I think that prize goes to the economy. But there most certainly does exist something called the national media narrative.
The media narrative, the right wing narrative are just noise. It didn't bring Hoffman a seat, nor did the Obama narrative bring a Democratic governor in either New Jersey or Virginia.
There is no wind either way.
A good campaign by a good candidate that is serious about the concerns of the constituents will win.
I see nothing from Washington from either party which would help the local.
Derek
The candidates in NJ and VA did not run to or away from Obama. The president is a non-issue for the executive of a state gov't. Even if Obama has 90% approval rating, it still would have been silly for Deeds and Corzine to run on an "I love Obama" plank. And Christie and McDonnell didn't run on an "Obama is the devil" plank to win.
Corzine ran ads all over the place touting Obama and asking voters to "join Pres. Obams" in supporting Corzine.
I predict, within a week, we will be hearing about Afghanistan.
Now that the US elections are over, Obama has what he needs to make his decision.
I think Obama's calculus is more about healthcare. He wants to get it passed before either pissing off his base by doing what McChrystal wants or pissing off moderates by ceding half the country to the Taliban (or pissing off everyone by doing something in between).
Obama has his political advisers in on the military planning, which Bush tended to avoid. Arguably a mistake on Bush's part, but would we have won in Iraq if the negative polling on the surge was a major factor?
Corzine most definitely tried to run on the 'I love Obama' plank and it did not resonate with the voters,particularly the independents. It also did not seem to have the turnout impact in Hudson County that the visits by Obama were expected to elicit.
Its funny. Last year the in the Ontario NDP provincial leadership campaign, the woman who won (I think) ran on hope and change. A young union activist.
The federal Liberals tried (are trying) a Harvard educated guy, their spin was definitely Obamaesque.
The Obama magic was showing up in the most unusual places. Obama is to the right of the Conservatives, but the left was hoping to hitch their wagon to the movement.
It hasn't worked particularly well for anyone, and didn't last night.
Derek
I think the approval ratings of Corzine need to be remembered. He was at 38% when Obama was inaugurated, and 39% on election day this year.
That is hard hole to climb out of. Hell, I am from Illinois and Blago, had better numbers then that for his re-election (granted the country was not in the midst of a epic recession) and managed somehow to win.
Christie ran the better campaign and had an amazingly unpopular opponent.
The Virgina results are more troubling, in my estimation. There is just a two pronged problem there lack of turnout of the "Obama-coalition", and discontent with the incumbency.
Contrary too what I am sure we will hear from pundits across the airwaves. I think part of the solution for democrats and the administration is to do something big. Something they can pass, even on a party line vote, that has an immediate effect.
In 24/7 cable news cycle, no matter the scope, depth, or structural severity of a problem, if you do not have it solved by last Tuesday. You have failed/are failing/doomed to failure.
Well, turnout is pretty much always a key issue in elections. Democrats like it high. Republicans like it low. I'd be willing to bet turnout is nearly always much lower in these odd year Virginia contests than it is in presidential races. The key question is what happens in plain-old midterms.
As for "discontent with the incumbency" -- well, it's the economy, stupid (not directed toward you). I remember a lot of progressive glee at the prospect of a Kerry victory over George W. Bush in 2004; I thought to myself at the time "not so fast, guys. It's almost impossible to take down an incumbent president several years into an expansion." Anyway, my theory on American elections is pretty much one of economic determinism. Jesus Christ himself couldn't have powered the Democrats to victory in New Jersey and Virginia given the state of the economy, and he wouldn't power them to victory in 2010 if the economy hasn't noticeably improved. I think it will have noticeably improved by then, so I'm not overly worried. I have a feeling Republicans are going to be bemoaning the timing of the business cycle a year hence (why couldn't the damned recession have started six months later!). But we shall see.
The lesson for Republicans is to not nominate freakin left-center to left-left candidates in conservative districts. I accept that you need a big tent and more left leaning Rs in left leaning districts is fine, but Scozzofova was a slap in the face to conservatives. (As she finally proved beyond all doubt by supporting the Democrat.) I wanted Hoffman to win but the Dem was my second choice (before Scozzy dropped.)
If you nominate social conservatives who run on a neutral jobs/lower taxes platform (ala McDonnell), you get the best of both worlds. Conservatives are happy to have one of their own and opposition talking about 20 year old theses look ridiculous when you are talking about what people care about. If you nominate a more liberal candidate, he needs to throw bones to the right and the left can use those to attack him as they are actually occurring during the campaign.
An interesting way of framing this is to ask "what could Obama/Pelosi/Reid have done to change last night?"
If the stimulus had been focused on job creation, and was demonstrably effective...
If the UAW had shouldered some real concessions, and GM was clearly well run...
If the Health Care fiasco wasn't an obvious scrum, with no sense of purpose or direction beyond political expediency...
If Obama acted even slightly like a Commander in Chief, re: Afghanistan.
These things could have easily given Corzine the win.
Given the fact that the youth vote stayed home, there is more that Obama could have done that would have mobilized *them.*
If 20 Gitmo prisoners were now housed in the USA, and the shut-down was clearly underway.
If Obama's moment as a "great" Commander In Chief equated to beginning to stage us out of Afghanistan.
If don't ask, don't tell were repealed (and replaced by I have no idea what... but anyway).
Then the Dems would have taken not only NJ, but very possibly VA as well. Corzine would have pummeled Christie, and the "Bush" tactic would still work.
To say this wasn't a referendum on Obama means that you disagree with not just one or two of these things (since he wouldn't have to deliver on all of them), but most of these things.
I am not sure what this means. If we are looking for quick decisions on complex issues, then I definitely do no want him to act like a "Commander in Chief". Afghanistan has a history that we would be well advised to not ignore.
Maybe. These things do not happen in a vacuum. For each motivating factor for the dem base, you might generate an equal or greater response from the right. Now I am not saying that Obama should not do those things, actually quite the contrary.
I would be pretty jazzed if he did. But implying that they are only a net positive does not quite give the whole picture.
Once troops are committed to combat, quick, usually correct decisions to complex issues is *precisely* what a competent leader does. It is, in fact, the core competency of military leadership.
Obama has known that he was COMINCH for precisely one year now. He declared that he had a strategy when he named McCrystal (sp?) back in March. This whole "need to decide upon a strategy" talk is nonsense. If he had a strategy in March (which was already WAY too late, given that he should have been discussing it back in November), what's he waiting for?
What we are seeing now is non-leadership, resulting in casualties for no recognizable reason or gain.
Don't even get me *started* on this... Megan asks that we not trash the POTUS too much.
RobM1981,
Well said. Last night, both NJ and VA had an astonishing 20% shift in support for the Democrat candidate (Obama) to the Republican candidate (for Governor) in JUST 12 MONTHS!
To my knowledge, this has never happened in any major election in the recent past.
RobM,
Excellent post and a welcome antidote to Jasper's polite, but pollyannish musings.
Shorter version, using Jasper's terms: Obama has fallen far short of the expectations of any sizeable component of "persuadable voters"
stringer:
I don't necessarily disagree with this. I don't think many voters possess much in the way of economic literacy, and I think they therefore are apt to substantially underestimate the amount of time necessary to turn around a battleship the size of the US economy.
I think economic policy matters quite a lot. But I also think it takes years to play out and for its effects to be fully felt. To put it another way, there is no known method for putting in a strong electoral performance when you take over an economy that A) has been in recession for 13 months; B) when this recession has another half year to go, and, C) when this recession ends a mere four or five months prior to the election.
Four or five months simply isn't enough time for voters to start feeling better about their economic prospects. Seventeen or eighteen months, though, may well be. Again, we shall see.
Jasper,
Why focus on just the economy? Yes it is bad and will take a while to turn around. (IMHO the real blow to the recovery will happen next year when Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire.)
RobM mentions a dozen or so other campaign pledges that President Obama has not lived up to that in their totality explain the loss of faith in "Hope and Change." Are none of them important to you?
Because in my view it tends to be by far the biggest predicative factor when it comes to political outcomes. It's risible to posit that next year's midterms will turn on the rapidity with which Gitmo is closed, or the particulars of GM's policies vis a vis the UAW. Carville was right: It is the economy, stupid.
here is what I dont fully understand:
why would time help Dems on healthcare? It only pushes what looks to be a perilous vote closer to mid-term elections. It allows newly found opponents like the Chamber of Commerce and the Insurance industry to run their ads. (BTW: The Chamber ad running on MSNBC last night was a good one)
Finally -- putting off healthcare also puts other legislation like cap/trade etc farther down the road (hmm-- that might be the reason)--
but that also is an issue: business simply isn't going to start investing and hiring again until it has a better idea of what the environment will be. Healthcare will change, but how? 17% of GDP is waiting. Cap and Trade --- energy prices will change, but how? all energy intensive business activities -- like most of manufacturing, is waiting. Taxes are going up -- but how much and on whom? Investors are waiting.
until those things are resolved -- unemployment will remain high, and that spells disaster for Dems in the mid term elections.
"...why would time help Dems on healthcare?"
It doesn't. They have less than six weeks to get a final bill approved and on Obama's desk, or it doesn't get done. They cannot drag this debate into 2010, for the political reasons you mentioned. Will they get it done? I don't know. Right now, there is a whole lot of political calculating going on. One the one hand, there is some danger of flak from the left if the party goes into the midterms without health care reform (or climate change, etc.) being done. On the other hand, many Dems will likely see that as being less dangerous to their careers than the repercussions of health care reform actually passing.
first. we should all go back and think about what we were saying on nov. 4 2005 before we start talking about 2012.
second. it seems prudent to wait until obama himself runs for something, or at least the midterms!, to conclude with full certainty that "the era of running...for Barack Obama, is over."
Nonsense. They don't dare tempt fate by dragging the debate late into 2010 -- that's true. They're certainly aware that they're better off having Obama sign a bill early in 2010 than none at all.
I'm guessing a bill gets signed by January or so, but I'd say they have until as late as April or May if need be. Again, the political calculus strongly favor their getting a bill passed over none at all. The Democrats absolutely need a major legislative victory with which to face the electorate next November, given the strong likelihood of lingering economic weakness. They won't repeat the mistake of 1994, not with their margins in both houses.
Not April or May. It's too close to the election. Most people think the drop-dead date is March.
In order for a bill to be signed in January, they'd have to have the final version voted out of the House and Senate no later than the first two weeks of January. Which, in turn, would mean all negotiations completed and the conference report drafted prior to the Christmas recess. Can this be done? Possibly, but it's not looking so good, if the news article cited above is any guide.
Could they get it done in early 2010 (prior to April, which I agree with Megan is too late)? Perhaps. But since there would be no time to start all over again, reformers would have to agree that one of the approaches currently on the table would be the basic legislation upon which to proceed with. More time at home with constituents over the holidays is not likely to clarify Democrats' vision on that score. Then the details would still have to be agreed upon, etc. That's a lot to get done in two and half months.
Here's the other roadblock to an early 2010 passage--the budget. In late January or early February, the budget forecast and economic projections are released. Very high budget deficits are likely to be predicted, along with stubbornly high unemployment and less-than-vigorous growth. Those numbers are likely to change the debate in Congress about what is achievable policy-wise, and it won't be to health care reform's advantage.
"They won't repeat the mistake of 1994, not with their margins in both houses."
Well, that depends on where they think the most political danger comes from. Does it come from not passing a health reform bill, or from passing one that they fear will be politically unpopular among centrists? In 1994, the Democrats went ahead with a budget reconciliation bill that raised taxes, trusting a popular President to help make the case to the voters. Not so great an outcome.
Claudius:
They also went ahead and failed to get national healthcare enacted for a popular president. Not so great an outcome.
I don't agree with your time line. Why couldn't a final (post conference committee) version be voted on by, say, January 23rd and signed by January 31st?
Huh? Who said anything about starting over? We'll soon have two bills -- one from the House and one from the Senate -- headed to conference. Constituent reaction was supposed to kill ObamaCare over the summer recess, too. How'd that work out?
The basic proof of the pudding as to why your (and all similar) anti-ObamaCare analysis is pure BS comes from following it through to its logical solution. If ObamaCare is such a disaster waiting to happen, the Republicans should be doing everything in their power to make sure just enough of their caucus combine with liberal congresscritters to A) Make sure it passes, and B) They (the GOP) escape blame. Because surely that would usher in a tsunami of GOP-dominance next November, right? Anyway, it sure doesn't sound like that's what they or you are trying to do. I strongly suspect professional politicians such as incumbent Democrats can see through the concern trolling, too.
I suppose one possible response would be: "Well, it doesn't really matter. Voters are sick of Obama and liberal overreach, and will choose the GOP next November come what may." But if that were true -- and you're a Democratic congressperson -- why not just go for the history books? I mean, if it's inevitable you're going to lose your job...
To conclude, I still think any rational analysis by Democrats -- and not conservative concern trolls -- strongly argues in favor of making sure a bill gets to Obama's desk. Modest though it may be, the proposed expansion of social insurance is a potential game-changer, and both parties know it, and are acting (and will continue to act) with this knowledge in mind.
Claudius:
They also went ahead and failed to get national healthcare enacted for a popular president. Not so great an outcome.
I don't agree with your time line. Why couldn't a final (post conference committee) version be voted on by, say, January 23rd and signed by January 31st?
Huh? Who said anything about starting over? We'll soon have two bills -- one from the House and one from the Senate -- headed to conference. Constituent reaction was supposed to kill ObamaCare over the summer recess, too. How'd that work out?
The basic proof of the pudding as to why your (and all similar) anti-ObamaCare analysis is pure BS comes from following it through to its logical solution. If ObamaCare is such a disaster waiting to happen, the Republicans should be doing everything in their power to make sure just enough of their caucus combine with liberal congresscritters to A) Make sure it passes, and B) They (the GOP) escape blame. Because surely that would usher in a tsunami of GOP-dominance next November, right? Anyway, it sure doesn't sound like that's what they or you are trying to do. I strongly suspect professional politicians such as incumbent Democrats can see through the concern trolling, too.
I suppose one possible response would be: "Well, it doesn't really matter. Voters are sick of Obama and liberal overreach, and will choose the GOP next November come what may." But if that were true -- and you're a Democratic congressperson -- why not just go for the history books? I mean, if it's inevitable you're going to lose your job...
To conclude, I still think any rational analysis by Democrats -- and not conservative concern trolls -- strongly argues in favor of making sure a bill gets to Obama's desk. Modest though it may be, the proposed expansion of social insurance is a potential game-changer, and both parties know it, and are acting (and will continue to act) with this knowledge in mind.
This is all simple to me. Here's what happened:
1. It's been 10 months since Bush left office, a year since the election and 14 months since the economic collapse. The anti-Bush thing wasn't going to last forever. Surprising? No. Seriously, how long did we all think it was going to last?
2. Obama had a very productive initial three months, and hasn't done much since. We're all in a holding pattern waiting for health care and Afghanistan, regulatory reform, climate change, and a host of smaller issues. So basically, after hope and change (which was very November 2008), there really isn't a big Obama name to run on.
3. This doesn't mean there WILL NOT be a big Obama name to run on in 2010. It all depends on what he does. He won't be the do-nothing SNL president if he passes health care, let alone all that other stuff. If the economy improves a bit and he passes legislation, there will be an Obama wave. If it doesn't and he doesn't, there won't.
4. Corzine is a total douchebag, and an investment banker on top of it -- might as well be renewing your Hitler youth membership every year.
5. Virginia is a swing state, and the Obama coalition didn't show. Not surprising, see point 2.
6. NY-23 -- are the votes of a few dozen upstaters really that meaningful? The angle I like in this is the comparison to Lieberman -- Democrats dispatched him in the primary, but then he won the general and has been screwing us ever since. Pyrrhic victory. Here, another pyrrhic victory, but shorter term (2 years not 6) and at least it will be a Democrat who screws Republicans.
Anyone who says this is the start of some sort of huge thing in any direction is totally bullshitting (or just projecting her hopes).
A REALLY big loser last night was the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Any Republican who has recently contributed money to the NRCC and then watched the NRCC distribute nearly $1M of their money to a candidate (Scovafazza) that eventually endorsed and campaigned for the Democratic candidate will probably not respond favorably to the next NRCC request for additional donations.
Next up - the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The NRSC is supporting Charlie Crist for the open Senate seat in Flordia over the more conservative Marco Rubio.
Yes, we live in interesting times.
We live in socialist times. Ever since 1913, this is not America anymore.
Great night!
We finally met:
THE AMERICAN REGENT
http://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/the-american-regent
Oh my.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/03/exclusive-poll-of-likely-voters-to-know-obamacare-is-to-oppose-it/
Would you favor or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans if you knew you could be forced off your current health insurance and onto the government-run plan?
Total Favor 17%
Total Oppose 75%
Would you favor or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans if you knew that there was no guarantee that you could keep your current doctor?
Total Favor 20%
Total Oppose 75%
Would you favor or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans if you knew that it could limit the treatments and medications you could have access to?
Total Favor 16%
Total Oppose 80%
A Breitbart poll? Seriously? Might as well through in a Rasmussen to go with it...
A Breitbart poll? Seriously? Might as well through in a Rasmussen to go with it...
Right. With objective polling language like that, the Dems might as well just concede right now and hand the Congress over to the Republicans.
Shrug. You guys keep claiming people want "the public option" but it looks like 70%+ of people don't like it when you tell them what's actually in it as opposed to pretending it's full of magical ponies.
Jasper - I think you mid-read the repercusisons of the failure of Clinton to get a HC bill. Dems who were against Clinton's HC reform bill were re-elected in greater percentages than those who were in favor of it. The bill wasn't popular (didn't have over 50% support of the public).
Obama's reform isn't popular either (less than 50% support in most polls and much less in Rasmussen's robo-polls). I think that failure to pass would actually be better for moderated Dems in 2010 than passing an unpopular bill. thus the constant delays that make failure more likely.
That's a good one.
The Democrats who lost their seats in 1994 were situated disproportionately in conservative areas of the country. Are you trying to tell me Democratic lawmakers from such places supported HillaryCare in numbers disproportionately higher than their reelected, left-liberal brethren in deep blue districts in large coastal cities?
It would be hard to prove either way, since the legislation never came to a vote, and it's possible some lawmakers voiced both support and criticism of the Clintons' proposal. But on this one I call bullshit.
Well, fortunately Democratic strategists aren't taking marching orders from concern trolls like you. "Moderate" Democrats are most likely to be found in highly competitive districts home to plenty of Republicans who won't vote for them in any event, and which makes getting out your base very important. And that, in turn, means giving your base something to get excited about, like national health care. As yesterday's NY Times put it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/politics/05cong.html?_r=1&ref=politics
Although I would agree that passing a significantly scaled down HC bill doesn't harm Dem prospects in 2010. In fact i think a scaled down bill with modest expansion of Medicaid, a fix for MD payments in Medicare and small subsidies is beginning to look like the most likely outcome.
That would be a godsend for Democrats.
I don't know where progressives got this incredibly counterfactual notion that Dems lost Congress in 1994 because Americans were pining for a government takeover of healthcare they didn't get. That just redefines wishful thinking.
Whatever may or not me true of 1994, I think we'd both agree people are not "pining for a government takeover of healthcare" in 2009.
Which is probably why the legislation proposed by Democrats does nothing of the sort.
I literally can't think of a way for the government create a universal healthcare system along more conservative, incrementalist lines. The proposals basally amount to modest tax increases + trims in Medicare growth to finance subsidies for people, to buy, er, private health insurance. Oh, and there may or may not (probably not unless Jomentum is bluffing) be a premium-financed public insurer that, um, 2% of the American public will be allowed to sign up for.
The public's not buying the "death panels/government takeover/socialist" talking points, TallDave. Time to give it a rest and start stocking up on ammo and canned goods. ObamaCare is on its way. Heck, the Democrats have actually increased their margin for error in the House thanks to their victory in New York State.
Can't say i know what the term "concern troll" even means. Don't comment here very often. Apologies for leaving out an important words in my prior post. What I meant to write is: MODERATE Dems who were against Clinton's HC reform bill were re-elected in greater percentages than those who were in favor of it. I'm sure you're right about the more liberal members.
Didn't the elections a couple days ago tell us something about independents? Don't moderate Dem reps need to retain these independents who helped put them in Congress last year to win re-election next year? I stand by the comment that it would be better for these reps if a bill like the current House or Senate bills did not pass, especially if they're never forced to vote on it. Current bills are unpopular. Why is passing unpopular legislation good for re-election prospects in moderate/republican leaning areas?