REAL analysis of the MA Senate race (and why we'd still likely get HCR even if Coakley lost)

[HughMoran]

"
...
One recent poll put Coakley ahead by 15 points, but another poll put Brown ahead by 1 point. That is a 16-point spread on two polls taken close together, each with a margin of error of about 4%. What gives? The problem is that special elections have a notoriously low turnout. Finding out what the general public in the state thinks is easy, but figuring out who will vote and who will not is extremely difficult. Different pollsters have different screens (if any) and that leads to these wildly different results.

During the past week, the DSCC has begun to panic and is running negative ads on Boston TV saying that if Brown wins, it will kill health-insurance reform. Brown has proudly acknowledged as much saying essentially: "If you want to kill this awful bill, vote for me." As the race becomes nationalized though, that helps Coakley since Democrats outnumber Republicans by a wide margin in Massachusetts and a close race might motivate many of them to vote on Tuesday.

If Brown wins, what happens to the health-insurance bill? Does it just die? Well, it is complicated. First, Coakley might call Al Franken and say: "Tell me what you know about long fights about election results." No doubt Franken still vaguely remembers his half-year-long battle with Norm Coleman and would advise her to contest the election and demand a recount. A recount and a bit of legal action could take months to resolve, during which time Paul Kirk remains a senator and can vote. He only loses his job when the new senator is sworn in.

Even if Coakley concedes, the certificate of election must be signed by both the Secretary of the Commonwealth, William Galvin (D) and Gov. Deval Patrick (D). Neither might be in a big hurry to sign. There is no law forcing them to sign the day after the election. The Republicans could go to court to try to force them to sign, but the court case could take weeks. And the Republicans couldn't argue that Massachusetts was not fully represented in the Senate because Sen. Kirk would still be there.

Finally, even if Brown won and was sworn in quickly, that would not necessarily mean the end of the health-insurance bill. The Senate did pass a bill on Christmas Eve. If the House were to vote on and pass exactly the same bill--word for word with zero changes--then there would be a bill that both houses of Congress passed and could go to the President to sign. Of course, House members wouldn't like having the Senate bill shoved down their throats, but if it were the Senate bill or nothing, it would get 218 votes.

The (secret) negotiations between Senate and House Democrats are still going on. It is assumed that the House has given up all hope of getting a public option in the bill, but there are many other contentious topics to be ironed out. These include which taxes to raise to pay for it, who is poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, language about abortion, whether the insurance industry's antitrust exemption will be eliminated, who may use the plan federal employees get, whether the new insurance exchanges are national or state-based, and more. While there are various leaks floating around, no real news is available on what has been decided. If it were easy, it would all be done before next Tuesday's election, but that won't happen. In order to try to break the stalement, President Obama is actively talking to the leaders of both chambers."
...

(whoops - forgot the link) http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Feel free to share this with the negative pants people - if you dare. (on edit: actually, I think I will)

[NJmaverick]

1. I don't want to test the delaying tactics. I am doing what I can to help Coakley win

[HughMoran]

2. Well, YEAH!!

Point is, it's not the end of the healthcare world if she were to somehow lose.

The more important part of the analysis (which someone might want to post separately) is the following paragraph:

"One recent poll put Coakley ahead by 15 points, but another poll put Brown ahead by 1 point. That is a 16-point spread on two polls taken close together, each with a margin of error of about 4%. What gives? The problem is that special elections have a notoriously low turnout. Finding out what the general public in the state thinks is easy, but figuring out who will vote and who will not is extremely difficult. Different pollsters have different screens (if any) and that leads to these wildly different results."

[NJmaverick]

3. Very true the polls are only best guesses

for a poll to work you need to have some historical records of voter turn out by party affiliation. Since this is a special election all the pollsters are having to take their best guess. Since each poll guesses differently the results are all over the board. I guess my point is that my philosphy in life is prepare for the worst and hope for the best. So I will assume the worst polls are the accurate one and base my actions accordingly (while all the time hoping the best polls are the right ones).