Legal Commentary

Plan B and Wave Elections

By Big Tent Democrat

Josh Marshall writes about the political calculations for House Dems:

I think this is very simple. And we're about to see what the congressional Dems are made of. Obama too. [. . .] For the House liberals, it was clear that only very limited revisions were going to be gained in the House-Senate negotiations. It's one thing if someone wasn't going to vote for the final bill at all. But if they were, the differences between the senate bill and whatever the negotiation was going to produce simply were not going to be big enough -- not remotely -- to justify voting against it.

For the conservative Dems, if they already voted for the more liberal House bill, it won't help them a wink to refuse to vote for the senate bill now -- whether that means casting a no vote or just preventing it from coming up for a vote at all. This should be obvious to anyone who knows how 30 second TV ads work (or frankly, even how very reasonable political argument works). And the lesson of 1994 is clear: the folks who killed health care in 1994 didn't gain any benefit from it. They were the ones who got slaughtered in November.

This is absurd analysis. I'll explain why on the other side.

Remember the premise - Dems would have just lost in MASSACHUSETTS!! The Dems are staring a GOP Wave election in the face. What that means is that no one should feel safe in their seats, including in heretofore considered "safe" seats. In this scenario, the Obama Administration's accomplishments will mean next to nothing. His lack of coattails for 2010 will be manifest.

For House progressives, whether they come to the policy conclusion that the Senate bill is better than nothing or not, the POLITICAL calculation would appear to be to rush into the arms of the base. That would require, at the minimum, an agreement for concrete changes to the health bill via reconciliation. For Marshall it is easy to minimize the modifications that would occur in the bill. But for the progressive base, especially the unions and their leadership, those changes are essential. Can you imagine spitting in the eyes of the unions in THIS political environment? Only a Village blogger could imagine that as "simple." I call it simple minded.

For Blue Dogs, I doubt anything is going to help them, but I feel pretty confident that a vote for the unpopular health bill is not one of these things. ESPECIALLY if it involves spitting in the eyes of unions.

I do not know what is going to happen, but if I was advising a House progressive, as a purely political matter, I would advise that they do their damnedest to at least be perceived as fighting for something better than the Senate bill.

That is going to require, in my view, actually missing the President SOTU deadline, for appearances sake if nothing else, and some type of concrete deal to fix the Senate bill in a reconciliation bill.

I can not imagine that anyone is in the mood right now to walk the plank for Obama, who is not on the ballot this year. Marshall's analysis is ridiculous.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on January 19, 2010 (boomark / email).