Would a Coakley loss strengthen Progressive's hand on healthcare bill?

[Mari333]

Would a Coakley Loss Strengthen Progressives' Hand on Health Care?
by: David Sirota
Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:00 by David Sirota

If Democrats lose the Massachusetts Senate race, there are two possible ways to pass a final health care bill: 1) The House will simply pass the Senate bill unamended thus circumventing another Senate vote entirely or 2) The Senate will be forced to use reconciliation to pass an amended conference report. If progressives in the House have enough vote to reject scenario 1, they would be in a good position to make the final bill stronger via scenario 2 - stronger than they even may be able to make the bill right now with a 60-vote Democratic majority in the Senate. Here's why:
Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D) is now saying that if Democrats lose the Masssachusetts Senate election tomorrow, the party will consider using reconciliation to pass the health care bill. He insists that "even before the Massachusetts" race this was the case, but that's not what Democratic leaders had previously been saying.

For the party, this sudden re-legitimization of reconciliation makes obvious arithmetic sense - Democrats' Senate majority will be 59 and not the 60 votes needed to break a standard filibuster, and so if the House rejects simply passing the original Senate bill with zero conference amendments, Democrats would be forced to use reconciliation in the Senate to pass an amended final bill.

Setting aside the obvious hypocrisy of Democrats previously saying reconciliation was "off the table" in a 60-vote Senate when in fact it didn't need to be, this potential new scenario raises a question: Would a Democratic loss in Massachusetts actually strengthen progressives on the specific issue of health care? Hear me out.



















http://www.openleft.com/diary/16973/dems-inadvertently-signal-that-a-coakley-loss-would-strengthen-progressives-on-health-care

[NJmaverick]

1. The left giving Ted's seat to the GOP would be a disgrace no matter how you spin it

[last1standing]

7. As much as I respected Ted Kennedy, it was never his seat.

It is the seat of the people of Massachusetts. Whether you like it or not, it is their choice who fills it and to call that a disgrace is to say the same of democracy. Perhaps you need to take some time out to get an idea of what you really believe in.

[NJmaverick]

9. When you start thinking repukes getting elected is anything less than horrible

when it is one of the bluest states in the union... then I think it's you that needs to take time out to reflect on your values and what's really important.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Of Course People Have The Right To Vote For Whomever They Choose

But losing that seat to a Republicant would be an unmitigated disaster and embarrassment for the party.


It would be like Pee Wee Herman beating up Floyd Mayweather Jr.

[Mari333]

2. READ IT FIRST , UNREC'S, IT MEANS THE HOUSE BILL MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE THAN

[TheWraith]

24. NO IT WOULD NOT.

Reconciliation cannot pass half the things that are in the House healthcare bill.

[cali]

3. I doubt that a loss in MA will result in the legislation being strengthened.

Dem lawmakers are very unlikely to react that way.

[Mari333]

4. he is saying, what if. ..which is good, because to me it shows the options

and the house version, for me anyway, is preferable.

[jpak]

5. Yeah, stay-at-home progressives helping to elect a GOP moran will strengthen their hand!

The logic is impeccable!

:thumbsup:

:rofl:

[Mari333]

6. YOU DIDNT READ IT

GOD. it means the house version, IF she loses, could gain strength as the optimal final bill. he did NOT say not to vote for her.
knee jerk responses suck, you know.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

10. I did read it - it was a fairy tale

and a 59 senate Dem majority will mean that NO PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION WILL PASS THE SENATE.

Obama will certainly fail - aren't we glad?

He's just like Bush ya know...

[nevergiveup]

11. A Coakley loss will likely mean a dramatic shift to the right

Mass is one of the most liberal states politically and a loss of Teddy's seat will mean nothing can be taken for granted and this includes any new votes that take place on health care reform. If the polls are accurate and Independents in this state go heavily for Brown then Democrats in all states will be running for safety.

[nashville_brook]

12. Sirota is saying that Senate leadership isn't leading, and this whole supermajority

crap is making it worse b/c it gives/gave Reid an excuse run roughshod over the will of the people.

btw -- what happened to all the posters who said that it didn't matter what was in the Senate bill b/c the public option would be put back in reconciliation? really, where are they now. am i the only one who remembers all the condescending posts about how "we don't understand how procedure really works," followed by long copy/pasted explanations of parliamentary rules.

[Tailormyst]

14. I don't think anything will strengthen this watered down POS.

They had a chance to do things right. They blew it and chose the Ins companies over the people.

[doc03]

15. If Coakley looses the HCR bill is dead. If they pass

it through the back door then the MSN will say the Congress pushed it through against the public wishes, there will be hell to pay in November. I doubt they will be able to get 51 votes anyway, Democrats will drop their support like a hot potato. The Blue Dog Democrats aren't going to be able to justify their vote back home and they know it.

[Jennicut]

16. If Coakley loses, the Senate version will be the one the Dem leadership will try to pass

The Dems will move to the right. When has either political party ever moved to the left after losing midterm elections (or in this case a special election with lots of publicity)?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. Or

When has either political party ever moved to the left after losing winning midterm elections...?

[Jennicut]

23. True. But if they lose, it will be even further to the right.

[grytpype]

17. No. Smarter progressives PLEASE!

This is just a bunch of Noble Failure bullshit.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. This simply isn't constructive to speculate on now

I support a Coakley victory. The winner on Tuesday will hold that seat for years and will be a critical vote on scores of important matters. Progressives should back her, period.

[HereSince1628]

21. Considering that the sp. election has been spun as a referendum on HCR

and also spun as a bill that the media is saying lacks majority support among voters...

Doesn't it seem that even when she wins, this experience will have put a chill down the backs of the blue-nosed, cold-footed blue dogs, and others, who will be bolting from semi-solidarity for the percieved security of the 'populist' majority?

Are we really condident that Harry and Pelosi can hold together legislators who didn't win Nebraskoid 'buy-offs' for their constituents back home?

Seems that the longer this soup boils, the stronger will be flavor of the leather used to make it.

[DFLforever]

22. No.. I don't think a bill will get better in the Senate.

The conservadems will be frightened from supporting any bill. And if the partial types of legislation available through reconciliation can't achieve effective cost controls, I think support could fall below 50 in the Senate.

Maybe I'm too pessimistic but imo if a new Senate bill is even possible, I think it will be less comprehensive, not more.

[DailyGrind51]

25. We would lose the entire thing and have to wait another 20 years before it would be brought up again

We lose even one Senate seat and it will be a miracle to get ANY Progressive legislation passed!

[JHB]

26. Frankly, I think "what ifs" of this sort should wait until after the Mass election.

It's a tactic to use in the event of a loss, so it's so much hot air until the results are in and we find that the vote tallys came down that way.

Until then, it's as moot as a Palin 2012 victory, and the thing to do is prevent it.