A Mike Lux Golden Oldie
From Jan 20, 2010. Original HEREIn all the hundreds of thousands of words being written and spoken about the implications of last night's special election in Massachusetts by all the pundits and strategists and drum-beaters for various interest groups, only one thing really matters right now: the character of the leaders of the Democratic party. It is up to them whether this generation of Democrats has the guts to keep moving forward boldly even as they run into resistance and trial, or whether they fall back into the collective character flaw that has held the Democrats, and the country, back for 40 years now: that sense of abiding caution that would have them pull back into a shell at the first sign of trouble and give up on trying to change anything. As I wrote in my book The Progressive Revolution:
In the culture of caution that dominates Democratic politics in the modern era, when you try something big and fail, even if the failure is due in great part to your own timidity, you only become more cautious.
President Obama deserves enormous credit for taking on big tough issues like health care and climate change and financial regulation, but the problem is that the pursuit of these noble causes has become bogged down in the slowness and special interest dominated world that is Capitol Hill right now. The Obama White House has compounded the problem by not taking on the special interests head on and full force, but instead giving in to them on a variety of issues that really mattered to both the Democratic base and to middle class voters: the big banks got bailout money while being asked to do little in return; the drug companies got taken off the hook in order to bring them aboard with health care legislation; the insurance industry won all their big battles on health care, leaving them free from public plan competition or anti-trust worries; polluters got massive set-asides in the energy bill.
Here's the deal: while there are significant differences between Democratic base voters who didn't turn out to vote in very big numbers yesterday in Massachusetts, and the working class swing voters who voted for Scott Brown, these two kinds of voters actually have a great deal in common in terms of what will move them to vote for Democrats:
1. They want big change.
2. They are tired of having wealthy special interests, especially the big banks and insurers, run things in DC.
3. They expect the Democrats to get things done on the big issues of the day- they want jobs created, a better health care system where the power of the big insurers is reigned in, investments in renewable energy, the big banks broken up.
The same debate every political party has after every big loss started up immediately again last night. The completely predictable voices of cautious conservative Democrats are already in the usual high pitch whine: we have to pull back, we have to go slow, we have to not change things so much. The quintessential cautious Democrat, Evan Bayh, spoke for this line of thinking in his usual way:
It's why moderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massacusetts aren't buying our message. They just don't believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems.
Although he was arguing this in the context of pulling back, the ironic thing is that Bayh was right about one thing: voters really don't believe Democrats are solving their problems. And why is that? Because the big change we promised them hasn't materialized. Because the deals being cut with the bankers and drug companies and insurance industry are not solving their problems. Because going in slow motion on issues like health care has convinced them that we can't deliver.
At this moment, Democrats face the ultimate test of character: do we have the courage to head into the wind of the pontificating pundits and the culture of caution Democrats, and deliver the real change American voters are asking for? Or do we turn tail and run from the challenge? The irony is that doing the gutsy thing is by far the smartest thing Democrats could do politically. If we actually pass health care reform, if we actually go after the big banks, if we actually get things done on immigration reform, we convince swing voters we are capable of getting things done, and we convince our base that we are worth turning out to vote for.
Voters will reward us if we do the right thing. And so will history. When the revolutionary war was going badly for Washington, when the civil war was going badly for Lincoln, when civil rights reform threatened the Democrats in the South for a generation, our leaders did not turn tail and run away from the challenge. They had the courage of their convictions, and they have a special place in our country's history as a result. Now is the time for this generation of Democratic leaders to do the right thing. Voters will reward them in the short run, and history will reward them in the long run.
It's been a fairly long time since Attorney General Martha Coakley famously lost Massachusetts to State Senator Scott Brown. A look back at the race gives an insightful view into the Republican machine, and how Republicans are often quite effective when campaigning.
Mr. Brown ran a classic Republican campaign. He effectively painted Ms. Coakley as lazy and unwilling to campaign, a politician who didn't care about Massachusetts, who simply assumed that Massachusetts would vote Democratic because it always did. Every minor mistake Coakley made - a stupid statement here, a word spelled wrongly there - was turned into further support for this theme.
It's been a bit since the Massachusetts election, in which unknown Republican Scott Brown emerged to upset the favored Democrat Martha Coakley in one of union's deepest-blue states. Since then, Democrats have been recalibrating their strategy.
In a previous post, I outlined the results of how a tied election might look like. Let's take a look at the prediction:
Today, President Barack Obama will deliver a speech to Congress outlining his plan to move forward on health care reform. The president is expected to advocate the use of budget reconciliation.
Art Levine of Working In These Times warns that some centrist Democrats are already getting cold feet on reconciliation. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, went on TV to declare reconciliation impossible. These guys just don't get it. It's reconciliation or defeat. There is no other way. Without reconciliation, the bill dies. Without a bill, the Democrats get massacred in the mid-term elections.
Health care reform to date
Quick recap: The House and the Senate have both passed health care reform bills. The original plan was to merge those two bills in a conference committee and send the final version back to both houses of Congress for a vote. However, the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate when Republican Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley in the special election in Massachusetts.
Once they recovered from their shell shock, Democrats reluctantly converged around Plan B: Let the House re-pass the Senate version of the bill, thereby skipping the step where the Senate votes on the conference report. However, the Senate bill could not pass the House in its current form. So, the Senate needs to tweak the bill to make it acceptable to the House-either before or after the House re-passes the Senate bill. In order to make those changes without getting filibustered, the Senate Democrats will have to insert the modifications through budget reconciliation, where measures pass by a simple majority. Whew!
Of course, the Republicans trying to paint Democrats as tyrants for using reconciliation. Nevermind that 16 of the 22 reconciliation bills passed since reconciliation was invented in 1974 were passed by Republican majorities.
Whither the Public Option?
Reconciliation would appear to give the public health insurance option a new lease on life. The House bill has a public option, but the Senate bill doesn't. The public option was traded away on the Senate side to forge the original filibuster-proof majority. As a procedural matter, the public option could easily be reinserted during reconciliation because it has such a direct impact on the federal budget, i.e., it would save the taxpayer a lot of money. The White House claims to support a public option. Yet Obama didn't propose one in his health care plan last week.
Some observers take that as a sign that the White House doesn't think the votes are there. (Cynics say it's proof the White House never cared about the public option in the first place.) Even Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) told radio host Ed Schultz that he can't support a public option for fear of killing the health care bill, according to Jason Hancock of the Iowa Independent. Harkin has been taking a lot of heat from progressives for refusing to join with other senators in signing a letter calling for a public option.
Abortion Storm Clouds
Speaker Nancy Pelosi had little to say about how she plans to overcome resistance within her own caucus on abortion and immigration issues within health reform, as Brian Beutler reports for TPMDC. Pelosi needs 216 votes to pass a bill. The original House bill only passed by 5 votes. Rabid anti-choice Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) claims to have assembled a coalition of like-minded Dems who consider the Senate's slightly less restrictive rules for abortion funding "unacceptable." There is no reliable public vote count on how many of these representatives, if any, would vote to kill health care over abortion. If they do, it would be purely out of spite. Abortion language can't be tweaked in reconciliation because it doesn't directly affect the budget.
Stupak and the myth of federal funding for abortions
In The Nation, Jessica Arons takes a closer look at Stupak's radical and misleading anti-choice rhetoric. The federal government is already legally barred from funding elective abortions, and nothing in the Senate bill would change that. Arons explains that the Senate bill would allow plans that participate in the federally-subsidized exchanges to offer abortion coverage provided that customers buy that coverage with their own money, not with subsidized federal dollars. If the government pays 30% of the cost of the policy and the consumer pays 60%, the money for abortion coverage comes out of the consumer's end.
There's a long tradition of segregating government money. Both Planned Parenthood and Catholic hospitals get federal funds. By law, Planned Parenthood can't use that money to perform abortions, but it can use it to do pap smears and offer other health care. By the same token, a Catholic hospital can take federal money to provide medical care, but not to proselytize to patients. Arons ably satirizes Stupak's extreme position:
If everyone thought like Bart Stupak, a woman seeking an abortion:
(1) would not be able to take a public bus or commuter train to an abortion clinic, even if she paid her own fare;
(2) would not be able to drive on public roads to a clinic, even if she drove her own car and paid for her own gas;
(3) would not be able to walk on public sidewalks to the clinic, even though she paid property taxes;
(4) would not be able to put her child in childcare while she was at the clinic if she received a tax credit that offset the cost of childcare;
(5) would not be able to take medicine at the clinic that was researched or developed by the government, even if she paid for the medicine herself.
Bunning backs down
In other health care news, AlterNet reports that yesterday Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) ended his one-man filibuster of the extension of a bill that would have prevented a 21% cut in Medicare reimbursement rates and extended unemployment benefits while the Senate finalizes the jobs bill. Bunning caved under pressure from his own party. Even Republicans realized that there was no political percentage in stiffing doctors and the unemployed.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Congratulations to Scott Brown in his history making upset victory in Massachusetts, it surely shows that no seat is safe or certain in the age of the independent voter or amid the shifting tides of anti-incumbent sentiments. The one thing that is abundantly clear is that Brown rode to victory on a wave of independent voter support and not because large numbers of Massachusetts voters have suddenly embraced the principles of the G.O.P. and switched their party affiliation. In his acceptance speech Brown acknowledged: "Tonight the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken." Also, let us take a moment to thank Mr. Brown for putting the Republican Party back in the game of creating meaningful legislation for now they will no longer have the political cover of hiding behind the excuse that the Democrats control everything due to their filibuster proof supermajority. The arrival of Scott Brown in Washington means that the G.O.P. will now be held accountable for actually producing some sort of legislative product. The days of just saying "no" to every proposal put forth by the Obama Administration are over.
The degree to which the Massachusetts election is a repudiation of the Obama Administration is less than perfectly clear. A post election poll by Peter Hart, Election Night Survey Of Massachusetts Senate Voters, produced findings that reveal evidence of a working class revolt arising from unaddressed economic concerns; a continued desire to fix health care with no support for an abandonment of reform efforts; the sense that Obama has done too little rather than too much; that local issues trump the issue of Obama's overall approval and; that there is no evidence of any endorsement of the Republican agenda on the economy or otherwise. According to Democratic strategist Steve McMahon, Obama's approval rating in Massachusetts was 60 percent before the election as well as thereafter. In contrast a poll by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University's School of Public Health found, as per the Post's Dan Balz: "Dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, antipathy toward federal-government activism and opposition to the Democrats' health-care proposals drove the upset election of Republican senatorial candidate Scott Brown in Massachusetts." Interestingly, 52 percent of Brown's supporters said that Obama was not a factor in their decision to vote. Balz points out another noteworthy finding from this poll: "Among Brown's supporters who say the health-care reform effort in Washington played an important role in their vote, the most frequently cited reasons were concerns about the process, including closed-door dealing and a lack of bipartisanship. Three in 10 highlighted these political maneuverings as the motivating factor; 22 percent expressed general opposition to reform or the current bill." There is also an element of misconception in Scott Brown's opposition to Obama's health care initiatives. In an article detailing Brown's involvement in Massachusetts's health care reform, David M. Herszenhorn points out: "Mr. Brown, as a state senator, voted in favor of the Massachusetts universal health care law in 2006, when the state became the first in the nation to pass a far-reaching overhaul guaranteeing coverage for nearly every state resident and requiring everyone in Massachusetts to obtain insurance. Mr. Brown, in campaigning against the health care legislation emerging in Washington, has sought to portray it as fundamentally different from the Massachusetts plan. But Massachusetts was actually an important model for what Congress has developed, arguably the model for what Congress envisions." It is hard to make the argument that the Massachusetts voters are against health care reform when 68 percent of the voters in Tuesday's election say they support the existing state plan. Slightly more than half of those who voted for Brown also favor that plan. Even Jennifer Nassour, the Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party, said on the New Hour (1/20/10): "We have health care in Massachusetts and we do want quality health care for everyone, like we have it here in Massachusetts." Beyond Massachusetts there is new evidence in a Kaiser Family Foundation poll that reveals that while Americans are evenly divided over the health reform proposals being debated in Congress, they are actually more supportive of reform generally, when specifics are examined.
Like the Hart poll above, the Washington Post/Kaiser/Harvard polling shows, according to Balz: "GOP policies prove even less popular, with 58 percent of Massachusetts voters saying they are dissatisfied or angry about what Republicans in Congress are offering. Among those voting for Brown, 60 percent give positive marks to the policies of congressional Republicans, but a sizable number, 37 percent, offer a negative appraisal." To date, the Republican Party on Capitol Hill continues to trail the Democrats on the issue of overall approval ratings. Likewise, the numbers of Americans who identify as Republicans is at historically low levels. The latest political identification polling results available on Pollster.com reveals that just 22.5 percent of those polled identify as Republicans. What does this all mean for Scott Brown? I think the simple answer is that if he wants to get re-elected in 2012 he will act more like Olympia Snowe of Maine than South Carolina's Jim DeMint. In fact Snowe has indicated a renewed interest in a health care compromise and Scott Brown my very well be the ally she has been looking for on her side of the aisle. Deep in their hearts, Republicans know that the health care system is broken and unsustainable in its current form and ultimately they don't want to be the ones associated with continued failure.
No analysis of the 2010 Massachusetts election can be complete without acknowledging that the Tea Party Movement has moved, at least for the time being, from the fringe into the mainstream of American politics. When you sift out the gun toting crackpots living out their "Minuteman" fantasies and the ideologically challenged that sport placards about Fascism, Socialism and Marxism thereby revealing their utter lack of understanding of these ideologies or there applicability to the present, there are actually people within the movement who know how to make a difference. In Massachusetts they did. But the real question for the G.O.P. is has it made a deal with the Devil in jumping onboard the Tea Party tiger? It is one thing to embrace the Tea Party Movement when the opposition is a Democrat, but what about the prospect of intra-party challenges during the upcoming 2010 Republican primary process. The Tea Party crowd has been up front about its wanting to "purify" the G.O.P. of those who don't hew to a far right agenda. Even Republican heavyweights like John Cornyn R-TX are in their cross hairs. Likewise, for Scott Brown, getting too close to the Tea Party Movement may result in a one-way ticket back to Massachusetts in 2012. A new group within the Tea Party Movement called "The National Precinct Alliance" aims to take over the G.O.P. from the bottom up by capturing local committee leadership positions which will allow the movement to endorse candidates, formulate policy platforms and control asset allocation. The net result may be either an all out civil war within the G.O.P. or a restructured party far to the right of center. As conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer recently pointed out in one of his editorials, politics in America is played within the 40-yard line, on either side of midfield. When either party tries to push past that 40-yard line there is push back within the electorate. That said, it is hard to imagine a G.O.P. reformed by the Tea Party Movement as occupying any turf around midfield which would have a net affect of alienating independents and pushing the G.O.P.'s favorability ratings even lower than they are today. When you combine the Tea Party Movement's penchant for ideological purity with the likes of it's leading personalities: Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint, you have a formula for driving independent voters into the hills and thereby affecting a drain off of support for any type of centrist Republican agenda. Mark my words, the G.O.P. may be celebrating the election of Scott Brown now but they will soon rue the day that they got onto the Tea Party tiger, especially when they see where the ride is taking the G.O.P.
Beyond the challenges facing the G.O.P. the other relevant question is: Can Barack Obama's new found populist campaign drain some of the steam out of the collective Tea Party kettles? Political commentator Sam Tanenhaus recently opined that the Tea Party surge in Massachusetts was a combination of two forces, anger over deficits and a drive for ideological purity. As I already said, the ideological purity issue is a poison pill for the G.O.P. and a subject beyond the control of the Obama administration as it is an internal G.O.P. issue. If Democrats can regain the initiative in crafting health care reform that truly reduces the deficit and successfully combines that with some degree of positive results stemming from the new populist push, then a large part of the Tea Party message will begin to dissipate.
One thing that the election of Scott Brown does not change is the embedded problems that beset health care and thereby deficit growth in America. Again, David Herszenhorn lays out the predicament: "Here's what has not changed about the health care system in America. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, by 2019 there will be 54 million people in the United States without health insurance. The chief actuary of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says it will be even worse: 57 million people without insurance. In 2017, just seven years from now, the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will be exhausted. Empty. Dried up. Done. Total national expenditures on health care will continue to soar, according to the chief actuary, to $4.7 trillion in 2019 from $2.6 trillion today. The average cost of an employer-sponsored family health insurance policy will rise to $20,300 in 2019, or about $10,000 more than today, consuming an ever growing portion of family income and continuing to put downward pressure on wages." The average American would do him/herself a favor in asking their employer a simple question: How much does my health care cost and how much has its cost increased over the last ten years? Then they might ask: If not for the cost of health care, how much would my income derived from my employment with this company gone up and with it my standard of living? Thereafter, they might just want to go over the fine print in their coverage to see what kind of health care they actually have and to what degree it protects them and their family assets from insurance coverage shortfalls.
When the dust clears and the supporters of Scott Brown emerge from their celebratory hangovers and head out onto the street to again address the issue of deficits and health care reform etc., they will see, sitting there on the horizon the same broken health care system with its runaway costs feed by a failure to address what are now the inherent inadequacies of the "free market" to provide affordable coverage to all. It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same and so we are back to where we were a year ago, we have gone back to the future.
In the days and weeks after the 1994 election, working in the Clinton White House was a little surreal. After a 1992 campaign, transition, and first 22 months in office when we were moving at the speed of light, being asked to get a million things done, being driven relentlessly to work 18+ hours a day, seven days a week (and always on call!), all of a sudden we were directionless. The inner, inner circle was around Clinton night and day, trying to console him and buck him up simultaneously, taking the brunt of his frustration, trying to figure out what to do next. Those of us the next level down were quite literally adrift for a few weeks. I occupied my time analyzing the election results, writing a memo on what happened and where I thought we should go next, and keeping in touch with group leaders and donors and other democratic activists I was close to. But I wasn't doing any of this because I was being told to, I was just doing what I thought I should, and most of my colleagues were in the same boat.
Democrats on the Hill, having been in control for so long and utterly stunned by the results, were in even worse shape, completely adrift for weeks and weeks. There was no leadership to do anything for a long time.
Even though Scott Brown's victory merely means Democrats lack 60 votes in the Senate, I am getting much the same feeling right now from stunned Democrats. Partly because the path they thought they were on to get health care done suddenly blew up on them, and partly because a sense of panic has gripped a lot of members especially on the House side, Democrats are having trouble getting themselves together. There's a big difference this time, though: first of all, their fate is still in their hands, Democrats still control the Hill; secondly, we don't have time to wander around stunned in the wilderness for the next several weeks. What needs to happen, in a matter of days (not weeks or months), is that Democrats need to (a) calm down, and (b) stiffen their spines. If they make decisions in panicked mode, they will be decisions that seal their fate in terms of losing the House. If they calm down and look at things rationally, they will realize that voters don't like panicked wimps who can't get things done. Fortunately both Nancy Pelosi and Senate leadership seem to understand this, but the worry is that the House rank and file aren't there yet at all.
Professional pundits and Democratic politicians are in a frenzy over what Martha Coakley's senate seat loss to Republican Scott Brown might mean for American politics.
Immigration reform in jeopardy
As Harold Meyerson of the American Prospect reports, the loss of one seat probably won't derail heath care reform, but it does make the chances of passing immigration reform slimmer. Meyerson writes that immigration reform is "necessary to restore our economic vitality and political equality," and actually passing reform would benefit the Democratic faction. Unfortunately, that means that immigration reform will require 60 votes in order to pass the senate.
The Texas Observer's Melissa del Bosque writes about the slim chances of immigration reform passing in 2010. According to Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, a 2011 target date is "probably more realistic." del Bosque refuses to lose hope, reminding us that Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) has assured the public that "the Obama administration promised to bring up the issue in 2010." Of course, bringing up an issue and actually passing reform are two very different animals.
Holding on to hope for 2010
In her daily roundup of Spanish-language media, Erin Rosa of Campus Progress also urges a positive outlook "despite the reorganization of the Senate." Rosa relays that Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) assured the media during a telephone conference that President Obama "remembers his promise well." While "most latinos" interviewed are impatient, they hold on to hope that 2010 is the year for reform.
TPS for Haitians
Haitian undocumented that are currently within U.S. borders will be given Temporary Protected Status (TPS), as Julianne Hing reports for RaceWire. The decision only applies to Haitian immigrants in the U.S. prior to January 12, 2010. Hing observes that it is unfortunate that it took "a disaster of this magnitude" to inspire the White House to offer TPS to Haitian immigrants, though it is "a great relief."
What will the recently granted TPS status mean for Haitians that are already in deportation proceedings? Such is the case of Haitian immigrant Jean Montrevil, asAarti Shahani reports for New America Media. Montrevil came to the U.S. on a green card in 1986 to "make it big," but in his efforts, "got stupid," and caught up in selling drugs from his taxi cab. That was 20 years ago, and Montrevil has served 11 years in prison to pay for his errors. Montrevil is now a father of four and a community leader. The Department of Homeland Security considers his prison time proper cause to deport him. Many others feel he has done his time, and is a positively contributing member of our society. Democracy Now! also covered Montrevil's story recently, as noted in the Jan. 7 Diaspora.
Invisible to the first world
Why are countries like Haiti mostly invisible to first world nations like the U.S. until catastrophe strikes? Leonardo Padura asks, before the earthquake, "Who talked about Haiti?" for IPS News. Haiti desperately needs the emergency aid so generously given today, but the country has needed help for a long time. "Let us hope that tomorrow, when the tragedy no longer dominates the headlines, and the dead are buried," writes Padura, "we will not forget Haiti exists...."
Disappointingly, "U.S. corporations, private mercenaries, Washington and the International Monetary Fund" are remembering Haiti in a rather cruel and opportunist fashion, as Benjamin Dangl reports for AlterNet. At a time of crisis and great human need, Washington D.C. is "promoting unpopular economic policies and extending military and economic control over the Haitian people." This is disturbing, as a long history of economic exploitation helped render the country vulnerable to disaster. The recent earthquake has claimed roughly 200,000 lives so far.
Haiti in context
While borders and border cities bear the brunt of blame when migrants move, the cure won't be found in bigger bails of barbed wire, or harsh enforcement tactics that deny escape from economic desperation or dangerous conditions.
Jocelyn Barnes, reporting for The Nation, provides a much needed contextualization of Haiti. There are many related factors that weakened and harmed Haiti's ability to thrive, not the least of which have been storms and earthquakes. But the privatization of Haiti's infrastructure-which was "championed" by current envoy to Haiti in charge of "leading the quake assistance brigade" former president Bill Clinton-have definitely been instrumental in the country's fate.
Marching against Arpaio
Finally, given the recent holiday celebrating the life and efforts of civil rights hero Martin Luther King, Jr., we would be remiss in overlooking the January 16 march in Arizona protesting Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The event was organized by Salvador Reza, a respected Mexican American activist and community organizer in Arizona. Musician Linda Ronstadt, Co-Founder of United Farm Workers Dolores Huerta, and approximately 5,000 people marched from a park to Tent City, the name for the sheriff's makeshift detention center.
Arpaio is reviled by many in the Latino and undocumented community for his methods of racial profiling and humiliating treatment of detainees. Recently, Arpaio was compared to Bull Connor by an ad published in in the Arizona Republic by 60 black leaders and the Center for New Community.
King's vision was large and led to new horizons; it cannot possibly be contained to one era, or one day on a calendar. The struggle continues, every day, everywhere.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
What Will Coakley's Defeat Mean for Health Care Reform?
By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium Blogger
Last night, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley in the special election to fill Teddy Kennedy's senate seat in Massachusetts. Coakley's loss puts health care reform in jeopardy.
With Coakley's defeat, the Democrats lose their filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate. However, as Paul Waldman explains in The American Prospect, Coakley's loss is not the end for health care reform.
Remember, the Senate already passed its health care reform bill in December. Now, the House has to pass its version of the bill. The original plan was for House and Senate leaders to blend the two bills together in conference to create a final piece of legislation (AKA a conference report) that both houses would vote on. Once the Democrats are down to 59 votes, the Republicans can filibuster the conference report and kill health care reform.
But if the House passes the same bill the Senate just passed, there's no need to reconcile the two bills. This so-called "ping pong" approach may be the best way to salvage health care reform. Some of the flaws in the Senate bill could still be fixed later through budget reconciliation. It would be an uphill battle, but nothing compared to starting health care reform from scratch.
The second option would be to get the bill done before Scott Brown is sworn in. According to Waldman, there could be a vote within 10 days. The House and Senate have already drafted some compromise legislation, which Waldman thinks is superior to the straight Senate bill. If that language were sent to the Congressional Budget Office immediately, the Senate could vote before Brown is sworn in.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said in a statement last night that Brown won't be sworn in until the election results are certified, a process that could take two weeks. Historically, the winners of special Senate elections have taken over from their interim predecessors within a couple of days. If the Republicans were in this position, they'd use every procedural means at their disposal to drag out the process. The question is whether the Democrats have the fortitude to make the system work for them.
Remember how the Republicans did everything in their power to hold up the Senate health care vote, including forcing the clerk to read the 767-page bill aloud? They were trying to delay the vote until after the Massachusetts special election. If it's okay for the GOP to stall, the Democrats should be allowed to drag their feet on swearing in Brown.
Also, remember how the Republicans fought to keep Al Franken from being seated after he defeated Norm Coleman? For his part, Franken says he's determined to pass health care reform one way or another, according to Rachel Slajda of Talking Points Memo.
Incongruously, some Democrats are arguing that rushing to a vote would be a violation of some vague democratic principle. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) wasted no time in proclaiming that there should be no vote before Brown was sworn in. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), of all people, averred last night that the Democrats should respect the democratic process and start acting like they have 59 votes while they still have 60.
All this talk of "respecting the process" is hand waving disguised as civics. According to the process, Scott Brown isn't the senator from Massachusetts yet. According to the process, you have the votes until you don't.
Talk about moving the goalposts. It's bad enough that we need 60 votes to pass a bill on any given day. Now, they'd have us believe that we also need 60 votes next week. Webb and Frank are arguing that Brown's victory obliges Democrats to behave as if Brown were already the Senator from Massachusetts. Of course, if Webb won't play ball, it's a moot point. The whole fast-track strategy is predicated on 60 votes. Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly thinks that Webb effectively took the fast-track option off the table with his strongly worded statement.
Katrina vanden Huevel of The Nation argues that this historic upset should be a wake up call to President Barack Obama to embrace populism with renewed fervor. I would add that Obama was elected on a platform of hope and change. There is no better way to fulfill a promise of change than to reshape the nation's health care system and provide insurance for millions of Americans.
Ping pong, anyone?
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Think Martha Coakley lost mainly because of President Obama, the national Democratic position, and health care? Think again.
The following four charts measure trendlines since December 31st for the Massachusetts Senate race, the popularity of health care reform, the national congressional ballot, and President Obama's job approval. What they show is that Martha Coakley trended sharply downward during a time when opinions about the health care bill and the 2010 congressioanl vote were static, and job approval of President Obama was on the rise:
President Obama, job approval trend since December 31st
National Congressional Ballot, trend since December 31st
(Note: My numbers show a slightly better position for Democrats because I include Daily Kos polls)
Health care plan, favor / oppose trend since December 31st
Massachusetts Senate race, trend since December 31st
Martha Coakley went from a 13% lead to a 5% deficit since December 31st, for a swing of 18%. During that exact same time period, national approval of the health care bill stayed exactly the same, the national congressional ballot stayed exactly the same, and President Obama saw a 2% upswing in his approval rating.
The national political environment is worse for Democrats than it was in 2008. As I pointed out last night, the generic congressional ballot shows a 9% swing toward Republicans since Election Day, 2008. However, Martha Coakley's campaign dropped 18% independent of this trend.
There is a lot of blame to go around. However, the available evidence shows that the bulk of it rests on the candidate and the campaign. On that front, it is also worth considering the relative difference between the Scott Brown and Martha Coakley campaigns. That is, Coakley could have been slightly below average rather than terrible, while Scott Brown--and the conservative organizing behind him--might have been fantastic.
In all the hundreds of thousands of words being written and spoken about the implications of last night's special election in Massachusetts by all the pundits and strategists and drum-beaters for various interest groups, only one thing really matters right now: the character of the leaders of the Democratic party. It is up to them whether this generation of Democrats has the guts to keep moving forward boldly even as they run into resistance and trial, or whether they fall back into the collective character flaw that has held the Democrats, and the country, back for 40 years now: that sense of abiding caution that would have them pull back into a shell at the first sign of trouble and give up on trying to change anything. As I wrote in my book The Progressive Revolution:
In the culture of caution that dominates Democratic politics in the modern era, when you try something big and fail, even if the failure is due in great part to your own timidity, you only become more cautious.
President Obama deserves enormous credit for taking on big tough issues like health care and climate change and financial regulation, but the problem is that the pursuit of these noble causes has become bogged down in the slowness and special interest dominated world that is Capitol Hill right now. The Obama White House has compounded the problem by not taking on the special interests head on and full force, but instead giving in to them on a variety of issues that really mattered to both the Democratic base and to middle class voters: the big banks got bailout money while being asked to do little in return; the drug companies got taken off the hook in order to bring them aboard with health care legislation; the insurance industry won all their big battles on health care, leaving them free from public plan competition or anti-trust worries; polluters got massive set-asides in the energy bill.
Here's the deal: while there are significant differences between Democratic base voters who didn't turn out to vote in very big numbers yesterday in Massachusetts, and the working class swing voters who voted for Scott Brown, these two kinds of voters actually have a great deal in common in terms of what will move them to vote for Democrats:
1. They want big change.
2. They are tired of having wealthy special interests, especially the big banks and insurers, run things in DC.
3. They expect the Democrats to get things done on the big issues of the day- they want jobs created, a better health care system where the power of the big insurers is reigned in, investments in renewable energy, the big banks broken up.
The same debate every political party has after every big loss started up immediately again last night. The completely predictable voices of cautious conservative Democrats are already in the usual high pitch whine: we have to pull back, we have to go slow, we have to not change things so much. The quintessential cautious Democrat, Evan Bayh, spoke for this line of thinking in his usual way:
It's why moderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massacusetts aren't buying our message. They just don't believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems.
Although he was arguing this in the context of pulling back, the ironic thing is that Bayh was right about one thing: voters really don't believe Democrats are solving their problems. And why is that? Because the big change we promised them hasn't materialized. Because the deals being cut with the bankers and drug companies and insurance industry are not solving their problems. Because going in slow motion on issues like health care has convinced them that we can't deliver.
At this moment, Democrats face the ultimate test of character: do we have the courage to head into the wind of the pontificating pundits and the culture of caution Democrats, and deliver the real change American voters are asking for? Or do we turn tail and run from the challenge? The irony is that doing the gutsy thing is by far the smartest thing Democrats could do politically. If we actually pass health care reform, if we actually go after the big banks, if we actually get things done on immigration reform, we convince swing voters we are capable of getting things done, and we convince our base that we are worth turning out to vote for.
Voters will reward us if we do the right thing. And so will history. When the revolutionary war was going badly for Washington, when the civil war was going badly for Lincoln, when civil rights reform threatened the Democrats in the South for a generation, our leaders did not turn tail and run away from the challenge. They had the courage of their convictions, and they have a special place in our country's history as a result. Now is the time for this generation of Democratic leaders to do the right thing. Voters will reward them in the short run, and history will reward them in the long run.
Maybe Coakley is a bad candidate. Yesterday, I argued that Coakley was an average candidate, rather than a bad one, because her net favorables in Massachusetts were the same as President Obama's approval rating. I took this to mean that Coakley is doing no worse than national Democrats in Massachusetts, and just ran into a very good candidate in Scott Brown.
Today, however, the RNC poll shows Coakley's net favorable ratings 16 points below Obama's. Also, Mike Allen makes an astute observation about how Coakley, rather than national Democratic troubles, is to blame:
Smart point from Mike Allen on MSNBC: He says one sign the Massachusetts race isn't necessarily a referendum on health care and the Obama agenda - and is more about the candidates - is that Coakley was leading by 15 points only a week or so ago. "That wouldn't be the case if it were all external factors," Allen said.
Good point. National Democrats have not seen a comparable plummet in the polls over the past two weeks.
Election advice from some dude with plummeting approval ratings. Joe Lieberman, whose approval rating has plummeted over the past month because of his right-wing moves on health care (see PPP, CNN and Q-poll), now says that Democrats should move the right because of the Massachusetts special election.
Election advice from some dude who made his career based on his last name. Evan Bayh, who would never have been elected to anything in his life if his father wasn't Governor of Indiana, says "[i]f you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call, there's no hope of waking up." Thanks for the advice Bayh, but winning my campaign for Pennsylvania State Democratic committee was more difficult than having to run as a Bayh in Indiana.
Massachusetts Secretary of State dismisses Coakley campaign claims of voting irregularities. At the very least, that Coakley is making such claims is a signt aht she won't concede quickly in the event of a close result.
If Brown wins, Dems won't have time to pass merged bill through Senate before Brown is seated. The entire business about Democrats trying to pass a merged version of health care reform through the Senate between the election and Scott Brown being sworn in is, predictably for a Republican complaint, stupid. Assuming Scott Brown wins and there is no protracted recount, the 10-15 days it will take for Brown to get an election certification is simply much too short a time for the Senate to pass a new health care bill. Keep in mind that:
No deal on the merged bill has been reached,
Once a deal is reached, it will be sent to the almighty CBO, which will take at least a week to score the bill;
Once a score is returned, it will take the House three days to pass a bill;
Once the House passes the bill, it will take the Senate three days to pass a bill
All of which means that even if Democrats were willing to make such an aggressive move (which they are not), then Congress would not move fast enough to pull it off anyway.
This projects to a 70% chance of a Brown victory (and thus a 30% chance of a Coakley victory).
That is a bit better for Coakley than most other forecasts, mainly because my methodology discounts trendlines over the final two weeks. While that may not hold up in this specific case, my research indicates that discounting trends over the last 15 days produces about 20% more accurate results than regression analysis which emphasizes more recent results. Across 144 instances, one occasion of greater error in a special election won't change those findings much.
We will find out soon enough. This is an open thread on the Massachusetts special election. Results thread will appear at 8 p.m. In the comments, please post links to election returns websites.
There is a lot of useless information floating around about the Massachusetts Senate campaign. Here is some information that should actually be helpful:
No exit polls. There will be no exit polls tonight.
Anecdotal reports on turnout mean nothing. Barring a comparison to:
Past turnout levels;
At exactly the same point in the day;
Across several dozen, randomly selected precincts;
And only if that selection of precincts is representative of the state as a whole;
Then, and only then, will all those reports you are hearing about turnout mean anything at all.
There is no such systematic turnout report. Since there is no such systematic comparison, the turnout reports you hear favoring one side or the other are not solid information on how the election is going. As mikegehrke wrote over twitter:
New fake exit poll: 48-52 gonna be a squeaker! Turnout at some guys precinct in Wooster looks moderate.
That goes for absentee ballot reports, too. Barring a statewide comparison of absentee ballot reporting, the same argument in bullet point #2 applies here.
Polls close at 8 p.m.. Results will start coming in at 8 p.m., but really won't start coming in for at least 30 minutes after that.
Following the results live. Still haven't found a site that lists them town by town, but the Boston Globe and The Boston Channel are good bets. If you have a better one, please post it in the comments.
What are Coakley's chances?About 20%, averaged across the forecasting methodologies I have found to be the most accurate in the past.
In my experience, most people prefer anecdotal, or even entirely subjective, information that supports their perspective. Grounding in empirical observation, facts, and solid reasoning is frustrating rare. Consider that when watching the pre- and post-election spin during the rest of the day.
I want to reiterate something Nate Silver wrote last night: although Scott Brown is the favorite, he is by no means a 100% lock to win. This is the case across all forecasting models:
On Pollster.com, Charles Franklin looks at 18 forecasting models for the campaign, all of which show Brown ahead. However, a lead in a forecasting model, even across 18 forecasting models, is still not a lock.
Franklin says that the standard estimate for Pollster.com shows Brown ahead by 6.2% (although the chart at Pollster.com says 6.9%). In the 55 closest (under 17.0% estimate) statewide elections from 2008-2009, there were 5 instances where Pollster.com's standard Loess regression estimate missed the final results by more than 6.2%, and 4 instances where it was missed the final results by more than 6.9%. That would give Martha Coakley a 4% chance to win if the lead is 6.9%, and a 5% chance to win if the lead is 6.2%.
On 538, Coakley is given a 25% chance to win, and Brown an estimated advantage of 2.2%. That squares with my estimate of Nate's error rate. Based on Nate's 2008 results and a deficit of 2.2%, Coakley would have a 24% chance to win.
And finally, my model gives Coakley a 35% chance to win (although, in this specific case, I actually think it is less, around 31%, given the recent trendline).
4%, 5%, 25%, 31%, 35%--none of these are great chance for Coakley, but they are still chances. This campaign has not reached the 10% range, at which point the odds of victory would be reduced to zero (at least in an election pitting a Democrat vs. a Republican).
Another point of hope for Coakley is that no polling was conducted yesterday. Brown's support is very new, and thus very soft. As such, it is possible there has been some movement back in her direction since Sunday night. Public opinion does not follow physical laws, and just because a candidate was trending upward does not mean that candidate will continue to trend upward.
My best estimate, based on the available data, is that Brown will win by between 0.9% and 2.7%. However, no matter which way you look at it, Coakley does still have a chance. Not a good chance, but a chance none the less.
Yesterday, we attended a Grow the Hope (GTH) house meeting with their Rapid Response team, Organizing for America (OFA 2.0), and the Carrots and Sticks Project. After the meeting everyone decided to stick around and make calls into MA to help elect Martha Coakley in the race for Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat. We took a moment before leaving to talk with Jon Randall, Maryland's 8th district liaison from OFA 2.0, and we put together this video, quickly detailing how to make phone calls online to support Coakley:
STATE BLOGS
