No way to finish health care bill before Massachusetts Senate election decided

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:45


It is going to take a long time to finish the health care bill.  Once House and Senate negotiators reach a deal, even then it will take 10 to 13 days before the CBO report is returned:

Though Democratic leaders will attempt to work quickly, the aide added that even once a final bill is negotiated between the chambers it would take 10 to 13 days for the Congressional Budget Office to produce an official cost estimate.

After the CBO returns its final report, it will take another 72 hours for the House to vote on the bill.  And then, after that, it will take another 30 hours for the Senate to pass the bill.

All in all, this means that it will take at least 14 days, and possibly as long as 18 days, for Congress  to send the health care bill to President Obama's desk even after negotiations are finished.  That  would mean January 25th, even if negotiations finished today, which they won't.

The Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat will take place on January 19th.  The latest conservative persecution fantasy--currently being pedaled by the Boston Herald--is that Democrats would put off Brown's swearing in until February 20th in order to allow the health care bill to pass.   However, the truth is that Brown will be sworn in a day or two after Coakley conceedes, and that the health care bill will probably be DOA, in terms of votes, if Brown wins anyway.

So, it appears that the Massachusetts special election for Ted Kennedy's seat will determine the fate of the health care bill.  The three polls released on the campaign over the past week show Democratic nominee Martha Coakley ahead by 8.3%.  Looking over the 138 closest statewide campaigns for President, Senate and Governor from 2004-2009, there were only seven instances where the final polling average missed the final result by more than 8.3%.  That would translate into a paltry 2.6% of a Scott  Brown victory, even given current polling.

Nate Silver has suggested that polling for special elections is notoriously difficult, akin more to primary polling, where he says individual polls have an average error of 7%.  If that is true, it is quite different from general election polling (where individual polls have a mean error of only 3.9%. However, even this difference would only improve Brown's chances to 9%, still leaving Martha Coakley as the overwhelming favorite.  Still, it is remarkable that a Republican has even a 9% chance to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, and a sign of just how bad things are for Democrats right now.

Chris Bowers :: No way to finish health care bill before Massachusetts Senate election decided

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The bigger question is .... (4.00 / 1)
will D.C. consultants(and idiots like Rahm) figure out the real reasons for the Democratic malaise?  Will they realize that people don't like hearing about the big banks(and AIG) being coddled by the government?  That they want good paying jobs(which doesn't mean working at one of the few remaining US call centers)?

Is Barack Obama accessible by the people? (0.00 / 0)
Or by populist journalists?

Or is he in The Cocoon?

He needs to quit traveling overseas and start going to the towns and cities in the Heartland.

He might be shocked at the difference between what he is being told in D.C. and what the people tell him.


[ Parent ]
Answer (4.00 / 5)
No.  They will think they need to shift to the right even more.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Calvin - (4.00 / 3)
If the democratic party suffers huge losses in this mid-term, they will do the usual "we only lost because we were too liberal" shit they always do. Then they will shift further to the right for another decade and continually lose until someone like a Howard Dean comes along and makes the party talk about progressive, populist issues. Then they will win big and then repeat the same cycle over again.

Clearly our party is dumb lol.

I would love to have progressive values at the forefront of the democratic party with the go-for-the-kill party discipline the wingnuts had under Bush. Then maybe we could get some good, lasting progressive change.


[ Parent ]
What if Brown loses, but is close enough to sue, Coleman-like? (0.00 / 0)
Well, I guess then the Dems would have to go nuclear or say byebye to their healthcare reform. Interesting outlook.

Wouldn't matter... (0.00 / 0)
If either candidate is close enough to sue, Dems still have a reliable vote... Remember, Kirk is a temp placeholder until the Special Election.      

[ Parent ]
Exactly, UNTIL the special election! (0.00 / 0)
And not AFTER the special election. I read this as saying his term ends on elction day. Right?

[ Parent ]
What makes you think she willl concede? (4.00 / 1)
If Brown wins, it's likely to be by a hair, and Coakley can pull a Coleman and drag things out.  It would get dragged out, anyways, since they have 10 days for absentees to come in.... meantime, get the vote in quickly and get out!

I hope it certainly doesn't come to that... as for the "how bad things are for democrats" thing, Niki Tsongas barely won in a Democratic year... It's nothing more than a bad candidate running an "entitlement" campaign that gets them into trouble, and that's what Coakley has done!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


And in the meantime,does Kirk keep his seat? (0.00 / 0)
Otherwise, dragging it out wouldn't help anything. The GOP doesn't need 40 votes, they only need to prevent the Dems from mustering 60!

[ Parent ]
yes, I'm not sure why you're rushing it (0.00 / 0)
if it is that close, MA will certainly wait the 10 days for absentees and military ballots, and if it's still close, say within 10,000 votes--or potentially a good deal less--a recount could kick in automatically (threshold is .05%).
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws...

In 2006, Kennedy was handily reelected with 1,500,738 votes, to Chase's 661,532; that's a total of 2,162,270. One half of one percent of that is 10,811.

I'm not sure what the 2006 turnout was, but it is almost certain to be lower next Tuesday. So if Brown is ahead by 5-10,000 votes, we'll have a recount. And if COAKLEY is ahead by the same margin, we'll have a recount.  


[ Parent ]
Yeah, but isn't it true that Kirk's term automatically ends... (0.00 / 0)
...on election day, and that then the Dems are down to 59 Senators (if we count Liarmen and Hellson in)?

[ Parent ]
oooh (0.00 / 0)
I was not aware of that. ((Nevermind.))

[ Parent ]
I can't find anything online confirming this... (0.00 / 0)
Do you have a link to something saying this?

[ Parent ]
actually I don't think it's right: (4.00 / 1)
Here's the amendment to the relevant Mass. law:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws...

(f) Upon failure to choose a senator in congress or upon a vacancy in that office, the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy; provided, however, that the person so appointed shall serve until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy pursuant to subsection (a) or (c).

It appears that Kirk will remain in the Senate until the winner of the special election is certified by Secretary of the Commonwealth Galvin.


[ Parent ]
Ah, thx for clearing this up! (0.00 / 0)
It's an important point.

[ Parent ]
What a travesty (4.00 / 2)
It would be a travesty if Ted Kennedy's old seat goes to a republican who ironically becomes the kill vote that shoots down health care reform.

This is something we cannot let happen at all. Even the symbolism of such a scenario could really be a motivator for GOP GOTV operations.


Dems could have House just vote on Senate bill (4.00 / 2)
and leave it at that...not likely, but it could occur that way.  There would have to be some big arm twisting and promises to go back and do aome more revisions down the road.  My guess is, however, that if Coakley loses, many Dems will be too scared to vote yes on any health care bill and the whole process goes down the tube.  And, if Coakley loses in this heavily Democratic state, there will be a ripple effect...Obama's approval ratings dive and the Dems lose big time in November...possibly turning both houses back to the Republicans.  Hate to put so much on one race, but a loss in this heavily Democatic state (or maybe even a close win by Coakley) puts a lot of things in jeapardy.  Regardless of what you think of the health care bill, if nothing passes it will weaken Obama and the Democrats immensely and a loss of the TEd Kennedy seat will be a major blow that will reverberate for many years and election cycles.

Especially a mere 12 months after Cheney/Bush (4.00 / 3)
which is widely regarded as the worst Presidency in our government's 200+ year history.

Lesson 1: The best social program is a good job.

Lesson 2: The Democrats were put over the top by "independents" in 2006 & 2008. Lose them and lose.

Lesson 3: The Clinton Playbook is not working now. (did it work then?)

Conclusion 1: Those segments of the electorate that do not reliably vote in off year elections cannot be the basis of positive, active government, only negative, defensive government.

Conclusion 2: The United States is ungovernable in its current incarnation.


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox