Bloodless Coup

Why would health care be dead? Why would this change much? The Senate sucks in myriad ways, but not all that much is different. There were never 60 Democrats as that counts Sanders and Lieberman. There weren't 58 until July b/c of the delay seating Franken. Kennedy and Byrd weren't there much last year. The Democrats who were there include Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu and Bayh who often seem to have more nice things to say about the Republicans than their own party. If there were actually 60 votes earlier we would have already seen health care passed and we wouldn't have 177 unconfirmed Obama nominees.

Coakley ran a stunningly bad campaign and she deserves to be run out of politics for it. But I think the effects of this are being blown out of proportion.

To baltar - Brown is an extreme rightwinger of the teabagger set.

To armand - I suspect that this will only embolden the conservadem obstructionism, but I do see one viable (though unlikely) way to pass health reform - but it would require dems to have a spine.

Step 1: the House passes the Senate bill, which the president signs

Step 2: the House and the Senate immediately pass an amendment changing the bill to an agreed compromise, which they pass through reconciliation.

This is doable, and would actually result in a much better bill...

Yeah, that's what I assume what will happen. Which shows once again that the press corps is so dumb you'd think their brains would have fallen straight out of their head.

I think 3 good things can come of this. As the press corps in their united delusions has decided that 60 votes is the goal line and that the Democrats had that but not they don't, the Democrats might finally be able to get them to notice the level of obstructionism from the Republicans, and they won't assume Democrats are naturally failures if they aren't passing everything they want. Relatedly, dumb Democrats might no longer assume Obama can wave a wand and Democrats will get what they want. And of course as has been noted elsewhere, this might limit the coddling of Lieberman.

So while this certainly sucks on a number of fronts, I can see some pluses to it.

Armand: Health care might be dead (might!) if Reid/The Senate decides that they need to pass something else (i.e., if the House declines to pass the Senate version, and makes amendments/changes). Without Coakley, there is no chance of corralling the 60 votes that the Senate seems to need to do anything (note that the Senate seems to need 60 votes only when the Democrats are running it, not when the Republicans do, but that's an irrelevancy for this debate). So, unless the House takes the Senate version (somewhat possible, but I wouldn't bet on it), or the Senate leadership grows (as ryan notes) a spine and punches it through via reconciliation, health care is quite possibly dead. This isn't a guarantee, but they barely got the 60 needed to get this far, and losing one means they might not get the next step.

I agree that the effects of this are being blown out of proportion (I saw a clip somewhere of someone saying this meant that Obama would lose in 2012), but you can't spin this as good news in any way. The Senate was pretty close to disfunctional before this (I, too, saw that 177 unconfirmed nominees story), and I doubt that the Republicans, who seem to smell blood in the water based on this and the two governorships the Dems lost in November, will feel any willingness to work with Obama. Their "scorched earth" strategy since his election has enabled them to win most of the races since 2008, and polling indicates they will win more this November. And they've won it all by doing nothing more than saying "no" to everything Obama has proposed (the American public does not seem to require the opposition to have actual policy suggestions). I doubt Obama will get any further legislation to help Congress run in 2010 at this point (and, as noted, Obama may not even get health care).

This isn't a worst-case scenario; just logical. The Republicans are not about to suddenly decide to start compromising; I think Congress is done passing any significant legislation (they may even punt the budget to next year, with the Republicans hoping to pick up enough to actually win the House and get a better budget for them). Coakley's loss validated the Republican strategy of "no compromise with socialists." Things will get worse, not better.

Ryan: I suspected he was a wingnut, but didn't know that. Thanks. I doubt Reid has the spine to push the Senate to move things, but it's a nice fantasy.

Didn't know he was a wingnut? Somehow you missed the clip where he insinuated that Barack Obama was a bastard child?

I can't believe the morning press comments from members of the House. So many throwing in the towel? So they want to throw away a year of their own work and their majority? Curling up and dying - if that's what they really plan to do then Baltar you are right and they are lemmings. And that's less about Scott Brown than it is about them.

It's about the optics; The media is casting this as a repudiation of Obama's health care, not as local politics (or even some sort of dissatisfaction with the economy). I think the media has it wrong, but the Republicans are pushing that message (and a larger one about repudiation of all of Obama's policies), and it's getting picked up.

The Democrats don't seem to be able to mount any sort of credible counter-message at this point (Obama's State of the Union would seem to be pretty important at this point). The House members are running away from Obama and Health Care because they think the public hates it. I agree with you; throwing out a years work (when they have massive majorities in both houses) is stupid, but the optics are pushing them that way.

It's going to get worse before it gets better. If it gets better.

"Worse" is all a matter of perspective my friends

Yeah, worse. The Republicans have gotten traction by being nihlistic; saying "no" to absolutely everything that Obama proposes. That's not governance; that's nihlism. It may work to bring them votes; it may even carry them back into the White House in 2012 (depends on the economy), but it doesn't do anything to solve the ton of problems, foreign and domestic, that the US faces at this point. So, yeah, it's going to get worse.

Lets be clear, there is strident opposition to Obama's agenda on behalf of the people (not all but a good enough percentage to win key elections in the last month). Good governance requires that you at some point respect their wishes, not simply rely on single party control of Congress and the WH. The Republicans are getting traction because their views happen to be in line with a majority of Americans on certain issues. There is a reason the voting process allows for "aye" or "nay" right?

"Nihlism" is an excuse for the inconvenient truth that folks out there are not drinking the Obama kool aid.

Bottom line, not much governance was going on even with the super-majority.

I'm not sure I agree with that, entirely. Is there opposition: Yes, of course. Obama's proposals (in all sorts of policy areas) aren't perfect, and there could be valid criticism of them from both the left and the right. BUT: the Republicans are not offering counter-proposals of their own in any of these policy areas. Their entire agenda boils down to "no." I certainly respect the opposition to the change that Obama has proposed, but the opposition party owes the country more than just opposition; the Republicans should be offering alternatives that are more ideologically palatable to them, and then we find some sort of compromise in the middle. That's the way pretty much all legislation and change happens. My complaint about the Republicans isn't their opposition, it's their policy of not actually trying to solve problems and just saying "no" (which may work for them electorally, but doesn't do a thing for solving problems).

Or, shorter version: "no" is not a credible alternative policy proposal.

The only way "no" works (and I haven't heard this argument by any Republicans, so I don't think they are making it) is that the status quo (present policies) are better than any changes; in that case, "no" make sense. But that isn't their argument. Everyone (right and left) agrees, for example, that there are problems with health care; the Republican's unwillingness to offer actual alternatives has not been helpful, and their electoral success (MA, NJ, VA) means they will continue to not offer any alternatives. That's my definition of "worse."

In what sense are the Republicans gaining traction? Some Republicans have won some races, sure. But the president still has a net positive approval rating, Republicans are still less popular than Democrats, Republicans haven't been this unpopular in years ... is health care reform polling well? No, but that's hardly surprising. And the Republicans have no plan for it on their own.

There's a huge anti-incumbent wave out there, which is exactly what you'd expect in a bad economic situation and races with lousy candidates. You've seen a turn against the ruling party in NJ, NY, VA, and MA from races for Senate, Congress, governorships, county execs. But I really haven't seen much evidence that the Republicans are beloved.

While I do not disagree that the Republican side has been weak on counter-proposals, we can not disregard how Ms. Pelosi and Senator Reid have conducted business. They felt they could push through the agenda without minority support or contribution. Reconciliation (which has been talked about for months) doesn't really scream hey we want your opinion. Only when it appeared to be stalling out did Dems start raising the issue of lack of Rep. support or meaningful debate.

"Alternatives that are more ideologically palatable" are worthless when the controlling party doesn't care to listen, aside from simply putting them out there for the record (which has been done, House GOP released plan on June 17 just in case you want to read it).

Once it is clear that passage is possible/probable without minority party debate then "NO" is the only policy alternative left.

There is zero incentive to cooperate or provide additional proposals in the above environment.

The original argument was one of perspective, as a conservative things couldn't get much worse than having Dems control government coupled with leadership that was willing to ram policy through irrespective of the will of the electorate (33% favor Obama's healtcare plan as of Jan 18, according to Rasmussen and yet they are still trying to hurry it through).

While I do not disagree that the Republican side has been weak on counter-proposals, we can not disregard how Ms. Pelosi and Senator Reid have conducted business. They felt they could push through the agenda without minority support or contribution. Reconciliation (which has been talked about for months) doesn't really scream hey we want your opinion. Only when it appeared to be stalling out did Dems start raising the issue of lack of Rep. support or meaningful debate.

"Alternatives that are more ideologically palatable" are worthless when the controlling party doesn't care to listen, aside from simply putting them out there for the record (which has been done, House GOP released plan on June 17 just in case you want to read it).

Once it is clear that passage is possible/probable without minority party debate then "NO" is the only policy alternative left.

There is zero incentive to cooperate or provide additional proposals in the above environment.

The original argument was one of perspective, as a conservative things couldn't get much worse than having Dems control government coupled with leadership that was willing to ram policy through irrespective of the will of the electorate (33% favor Obama's health care plan as of Jan 18, according to Rasmussen and yet they are still trying to hurry it through).

Speaking as someone who is actually on the ground here in MA... Brown isn't so much an "extreme wingnut" as he is an airheaded opportunist who jumped on the teabag thing. He stands for Fox News, more or less... waterboarding and tax cuts, etc., though I think he's kindasorta pro-choice, but if the wind shifts he'll stand for something else tomorrow.

Coakley was (is) the worst sort of arrogant clueless MA Dem machine hack, and the inane hidebound party leadership has deserved a comeuppance like this for years. (And I say that as someone who voted for her -- comeuppance good, timing of this one not so much.)

The good news is that Brown will come up for re-election in 2 years, and the odds of someone like Mike Capuano stealing the seat back are probably better than 90%.

Ummm, the Democrats haven't used reconciliation. They courted Snowe for months and months. Single-payer was never even discussed, and they dropped the public option - and still 0 Republican votes in the Senate. If they were really running things down people's throats health care would already have passed, and you wouldn't have 177 Obama nominees held up in the Senate right now.

And why not still make policy proposals even if they won't pass this Congress? If popular opinion is what makes policies legitimate, well, shouldn't the public be informed of what Republicans would like to do if voters put them in power?

Reconciliation - "which has been talked about"(see original post) -inferred that they had not used it. The point was that it has been widely reported that they would use it if required. Washington Post and NY Times dating as far back as March 09 cite Dems and WH officials talking about this option

To the point of already having health care passed -The simple fact that it took a long time to create a couple thousand page bill says nothing to their willingness to force its passage. If they could have figured it out in a couple months then I firmly believe it would be a done deal.It took a long time to incorporate the right "incentives" to assure Dems would pass it :)

Even with all of the alteration two-thirds of Americans still want it defeated, one would think it would be time to alter course instead of figuring out ways to get the 60 votes for the current version.

As for nominees, Senate procedure allows for a Senator to hold up a nomination for pretty much any reason. Its simply not possible to force nominees down our throats, where as legislation can be.

Again the policy proposals are there:

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277551107536875.html

This is not to say I like them, but they do exist.