As a background to a jobs bill and the financial regulation package, health insurance reform will drag on for several more weeks, and might never be passed.
As a result of that, climate change legislation is on life support, and will likely be shelved (and even the back-up plan of using the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses might be shelved).
And, as a result of those delays, immigration reform is almost certainly off the table for 2010.
The conservative videographer who donned a pimp suit to embarrass the anti-poverty group ACORN was arrested in New Orleans, LA for allegedly conspiring to bug the office of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu.
It's not clear why Landrieu was targeted, but many suspect that she was singled out because she played a pivotal role in advancing health care reform.
Filmmaker James O'Keefe and three other men have been charged with been charged with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony, according to Justin Elliott of TPM Muckraker. At RH Reality Check, Rachel Larris notes that, if convicted, the four could face up to 10 years in prison.
Like chum in the conservative shark tank
Landrieu, a conservative Democrat, negotiated an extra $100 million in Medicaid funds for Louisiana in exchange for allowing the health care bill to come to the senate floor. Accepting health care for the poor in the interest of health reform was like chum in the conservative shark tank.
Rush Limbaugh called her the most expensive prostitute of all time. "She may be easy, but she's not cheap," crowed Glenn Beck. It got so bad that Democrats call on Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) was called upon to denounce the chorus of conservatives attacking his fellow Louisiana senator as a prostitute. (Correction: Vitter did not call Landrieu a prostitute.)
O'Keefe must have realized that an exposé of Mary Landrieu would be a hot commodity.
"This is Watergate meets YouTube," said Mother Jones Washington Bureau Chief
Health care reform in limbo
The arrests could not have come at a better time for the Democrats. Health care reform is in limbo as congressional leaders plan their next move after losing their filibuster-proof majority. The bugging scandal is deflecting attention from tense internal negotiations.
Brian Beutler of TPMDC reports that the House Democrats are converging on a strategy to get reform done: The House will pass the Senate bill and the Senate will fix it through budget reconciliation.
The Republican counter-strategy
While the Democrats agonize over what to do next, that senate Republicans are honing strategies to thwart any Democratic attempt to pass health care reform through budget reconciliation, as Dave Weigel reports in the Washington Independent. The reconciliation process allows both sides to vote on unlimited number of amendments. GOP leadership is hinting that if Dems take the reconciliation route, they will be forced to vote on every politically embarrassing amendment the opposition can dream up.
The stakes are high. In the American Prospect, Paul Starr reminds progressives that there's till a lot worth fighting for, even without a public option. For all its faults, the Senate bill would still cover 30 million uninsured Americans, expand Medicaid, end discrimination based on preexisting conditions, and set up exchanges designed to keep rising insurance premiums in check.
A memo for reform
Finally, our sources tell us that Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly is making quite a stir on Capitol Hill with his memo advising the House Democratic caucus on the need to forge ahead with health care reform. In 1994, conservative commentator William Kristol wrote a health care memo to Republicans that became the backbone of their anti-reform strategy, even up to the present day. Benen hopes his memo will be a useful counterweight for Democrats. Benen warns the Democrats that it's far riskier to fail than to pass reform that doesn't please everyone.
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.
The House could just pass the Senate health care bill, and President Obama could sign it into law. Problem is, the House doesn't have 218 votes unless there is a promise to pass a cleanup fix to the Senate bill through the reconciliation process.
The Senate doesn't have the votes to pass the cleanup fix through reconciliation:
Part of the negotiations center on whether Reid can provide an ironclad guarantee that the Senate will not leave the House in the lurch, aides said. If the House agrees to pass the Senate bill with a companion measure - or a "cleanup" bill - to make fixes, they want to know that the Senate will indeed pass it, too.
There was some talk among Senate leadership on Thursday of putting together a letter signed by 51 Democratic senators pledging to pass a cleanup bill if the House would pass the Senate bill. But that effort fizzled when support for it didn't materialize, insiders said.
"The Senate moderates' viewpoint is, 'We passed our bill. We're not going to spend three weeks on some other bill,'" said a Democratic lobbyist who represents clients pushing for reform.
Large numbers of House think this response is unacceptable. They believe the Senate has acted on so few bills that the House has passed--jobs bill, climate bill, financial regulations, student loans, etc. As such, they feel it is very wrong for the Senate to demand that the House pass one of the few bills they did act on verbatim.
So, that is the current impasse on health care. The House might be able to pass the Senate bill with a promise of a reconciliation fix, but the Senate doesn't want to pass the reconciliation fix.
So, who are the Senators that oppose reconciliation at this point? Figuring that out, and making them change their minds, might be the best path forward on health care at this point.
One Senator, Russ Feingold, who has opposed reconciliation for health care in the past, seems to have changed his mind. From a well-placed reader over email:
I spoke to someone from Feingold's campaign about his position on reconciliation in light of the Massachusetts special election. She informed me that while Sen. Feingold is no fan of reconciliation, now that it's reconciliation or nothing (apparently), he would be willing to support reconciliation if that's what it took to get a good bill passed. It wasn't the slightest bit equivocal or hedgy; it was a straight "yes". So that's a bit of good news. Hopefully the House can get their act together.
If we achieve the reconciliation path, it would be possible to re-insert the Medicare buy-in during that process. There are no parliamentary issues about inserting a Medicare buy-in through reconciliation, and at least 56 Democratic Senators were supportive of such a buy-in back in December (only Conrad, Lieberman and Ben Nelson expressed worries about it).
It is remarkable and ironic how the defeat in Massachusetts could actually spur Democrats to move in a good direction for progressives. That defeat has revived the public option, made stopping Bernanke a real possibility, and opened up talks about reforming the filibuster. It also has prompted the Senate to throw in the towel on a climate change bill, which is good as long as EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gasses isn't stripped.
Could the Massachusetts special election actually make things better for progressives? That would be very surprising, but it isn't out of the question.
If I were President Obama, I would spend the next year showing how government can serve a humble, helpful and supportive role to the central institutions of American life.
David Brooks' insipidly abstract advice gives me the perfect opening to repost this diary, my first, which itself touches on institutionalism.
Specifically, I argue that we’re at a point in history where our institutions are preventing the complete collapse of our standards of living while steadily skimming an increasing percentage off the top and concentrating it in the hands of the people who control them.
(Footage purchased from Sam Sumner, originally posted by Will Urquhart at Sum of Change)
As you may be aware, this weekend (tomorrow to be exact) marks the 37th anniversary of the passage of Roe v Wade, the supreme court decision that effectively legalized abortion nationwide. We have been working on a documentary about clinic escorts for some time now (tomorrow we will be making a big announcement about the film, sign up for our emails and you will be one of first to hear about it), so this weekend is a big chance for us to get some footage.
When I got back home from volunteering at the clinic, I saw an email from Operation Rescue announcing a press conference at the White House today. Luckily, I was able to track down a freelance videographer who sold us some great exclusive footage of Operation Rescue's President, Troy Newman, failing several times to name a single part of the current health care bills that allows for federal funding of abortion (although he knows for a fact it does, he just cannot tell you how):
The fate of health care reform is very much in flux after Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts special election last night. For example, the House leadership has cancelled a scheduled caucus meeting on health care today, opting instead for meeting with individual members. As such, take all of these developments as very, very tentative.
Chop up the bill into many different parts? Some House members, such as John Yarmuth and Bill Delahunt, are suggesting the health care bill should be broken up into several parts, with separate votes on each. The current line from the leadership is that idea isn't on the table:
"That's off the table at this point," a Democratic leadership aide said of breaking up healthcare reform into smaller bills - such as a standalone ban on the denial of private health coverage for pre-existing conditions - and gradually chipping away at the myriad issues Democrats have identified as plaguing the healthcare system.
Pass the Senate bill through the House, improve it in reconciliation? What does seem to be on the table is pushing the Senate bill through the House, and then improving it through the budget reconciliation process. Senate Budget committee chairman Kent Conrad appears open to the idea:
The Senate Budget Committee Chairman said Wednesday he's willing to use special rules to force a final healthcare bill through with a simple majority vote.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) made clear his openness to applying budget reconciliation to healthcare, a position he opposed prior to this week's special election in Massachusetts, is contingent on the content of the bill.(...)
"If the House passed the Senate bill, could reconciliation, that process, be used to fix things that might be improved upon? Yes," Conrad said. "Would I support it? I can't know that without knowing what would be included in the package."
.
House vote counting. In November, the House passed the health care bill 220-215. Since that time, Anthony Weiner Robert Wexler has resigned from the House. Also, Barney Frank now says he will vote against the health care bill, as does Raul Grijalva. Bart Stupak has also been lost, and with him as many as nine other members of the House. It is also hard to imagine that Republican Joseph Cao would still be on board. Some more conservative, non-Stupak Democrats might defect, too.
The leadership's best hope is that the Senate bill appeals to most of these Democrats, that some members of Stupak's ten will accept Ben Nelson's opt-out compromise, that the Progressive flank is mollified by a promise to improve the bill in the budget reconciliation process. It is a longshot, but not impossible.
This is shaping up to be a remarkably huge fiasco for Democrats. This level of disaster would be worse than 1994, because the economic situation ismuch worse and because the health care bill was defeated in a dramatic fashion by one candidate.
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.
1. Why Scott Brown won There were three key factors to a Scott Brown victory: national trends, relatively lower Democratic turnout, and Scott Brown as the superior candidate.
National Trends. Nationally, Democrats down 9% from 2008. The current national House ballot shows Democrats ahead by 0.67%. In 2008, they won by 9.65%. Scott Brown needed a 26% swing from 2008, and got 9% of it from the national political environment.
Lower Democratic turnout. With the exception of Rasmussen, the generic ballot polls in the national House forecast are currently measuring "all adults" or "registered voters" instead of "likely voters." When they start measuring "likely voters," current evidence indicates they will probably find another 2-3% swing in favor of Republicans, based on a relative lack of Democratic enthusiasm.
The earliest polls on the campaign in January, UNH and Rasmussen, showed Coakley ahead by an average of 13%. So, two weeks ago, Scott Brown was just where the national political environment and relatively low Democratic enthusiasm would have put him.
Running a better campaign. Scott Brown made up the rest of the difference by being the superior candidate with the superior campaign. The final On Message, Rasmussen, Cross Target, PPP and Research 2000 polls showed, on average, Scott Brown with a net favorable rating 18% higher than Coakley's. That is the rest of the swing right there.
Given their relative numerical impact, ranked in terms of importance, the factors were: 1) Brown is the superior candidate, 2) national trends, 3) relatively lower Democratic turnout.
Feel free to postulate whatever unprovable, subjective and / or anecdotal explanation you like. Make sure that this explanation fits into whatever preconceived notions you have about politics. It is what everyone is doing, these days--now you can be cool, too!
****
What happens to health care, and what the election means, can be found in the extended entry.
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.
Stocks up. Rich people are very excited about Brown's chances, sending stocks upward. I guess they had to find someway to make backthe money they spent on Coakley's campaign.
This is an open thread on the Massachusetts special election.
Here is where things stand on the health care endgame this afternoon:
Breakthrough on excise tax. Labor and the White house appear to have reached a deal on the excise tax. Some details:
Under the outline currently being discussed, which the sources stressed is still fluid, the threshold for the tax on insurance plans would be raised above what passed the Senate - which was a tax on insurance plans costing $23,000 and up for families.
In addition, health care policies for state and local workers and health care policies negotiated by labor unions would not be subject to the excise tax until 2017.
The sources also say a working idea is to remove dental and vision plans from the calculation.
One of the sources familiar with negotiations said that in addition to protecting health plans negotiated under collective bargain agreements, labor leaders are pushing to expand the deal to exempt health plans for all Americans making under $200,000 a year.
Regulatory reform. Reportedly, the White House is backing the House of Representatives on including a national exchange instead of a state by state exchange, and on repealing the anti-trust exemption for the health care industry. However, those discussions remain in flux, and deal has been reached yet. No guarantee either way, right now.
Reproductive rights? No word on whether the final bill will contain the Stupak amendment (which would create a national ban on abortion procedures in insurance), or Ben Nelson's state opt-out language. Pro-choice House members have been pushing for Nelson's language.
Overall deal now imminent--Friday or Saturday. The excise tax was one of the largest remaining obstacles to a final deal between the House and the Senate. The timeline for such a deal appears to be either tomorrow or Saturday, at which time the bill would be sent to the CBO for review.
Timeline. The House will likely send a bill to the CBO on Friday or Saturday. The CBO will reportedly take between 10 to 13 days to return a score on the bill. From that point, it will take the House between one day and three days to pass the bill, and the Senate another three days. All told, this means the final bill will be passed by the Senate as late as early as January 29th, and as late as February 4th. The State of the Union address is on February 2nd.
Coakley loss blows whole thing up--or does it?. With the Massachusetts Senate election on January 19th, and the Senate voting on the bill on January 29th at the earliest, it seems entirely possible that a victory by Republican Scott Brown would sink the whole deal...
...or would it? As David Waldman writes, the Massachusetts special election would not be certified until February 20th, and Senate rules require certification to swear in a new member. Republicans delayed Al Franken from taking his Senate seat for six months because of this, and Democrats could simply do the same to Republicans in order to pass the bill.
Also, as noted by multiple people in the comments, the House could theoretically just pass the bill that the Senate already passed, verbatim, and send that to the President. That is one possibility, but I doubt the House has the votes for the Senate bill. Some Progressives could be lost, and some conservative Dems would be scared off by a by a Brown win. Republican Joseph Cao would probably be lost, too. Stupak, and some of his acolytes, might also vote against it. All in all, with only a three-vote margin, the Senate bill might not be able to pass the House.
The man who admitted to gunning down Dr. George Tiller in church last May went on trial in Kansas on Friday. Tiller was one of a small number of doctors performing late term abortions in the U.S.
Scott Roeder admitted to shooting the Tiller, but he is pleading not guilty to murder, as Robin Marty reports in RH Reality Check. Yesterday, Judge Warren Wilbert shocked observers by allowing Roeder's lawyers to argue that their client is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, not premeditated murder.
Kansas law allows the accused to plead "imperfect self-defense" if he had an "honest but unreasonable belief" that deadly force was necessary to protect innocent third parties. Roeder says he killed to protect the unborn. Pro-choice activists are alarmed that the judge allowed Roeder to use this defense. If he beats the murder rap, Roder could face just five years in prison. In the unlikely event that his legal gambit is successful, the precedent could be tantamount to declaring open season on abortion providers.
No doubt Nidal Hussein sincerely believed that he was protecting innocent lives when he murdered 12 soldiers at Fort Hood last November. Somehow, I doubt the Army will be as deferential to Hasan's crazy religious ideas as Judge Warren Wilbert has been to Roeder's.
In other health care news, Robert Reich of TAPPED asks whether the rich or the middle class will pay for health reform:
There's only one big remaining issue on health care reform: How to pay for it. The House wants a 5.4 percent surtax on couples earning at least $1 million in annual income. The Senate wants a 40 percent excise tax on employer-provided "Cadillac plans." The Senate will win on this unless the public discovers that a large portion of the so-called Cadillacs are really middle-class Chevys-expensive not because they deliver more benefits but because they have higher costs.
Reich cites a shocking statistic: Less than 4% of the variation in the cost of insurance coverage is based on differences in benefits provided. Most of the difference in price is based on the perceived riskiness of the beneficiaries. So, if you're in a high risk pool comprised of, say, retired autoworkers, you're going to pay a lot more for the same benefits than someone in a younger, healthier risk pool. When you look at it that way, it seems unfair to pay for reform on the backs of people who are already paying more for the same thing due to circumstances beyond their control.
President Barack Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius are meeting with top labor leaders on the "Cadillac tax," as Brian Beutler of Talking Points Memo reports. Obama and Sebelius are trying to hash out a compromise that would be acceptable to the unions, who so far, have been implacably opposed to taxing expensive health care plans. The unions are reluctant to give any ground on this issue because so many of their members have accepted expanded health care benefits in lieu of wage increases over the years. Taxing those benefits now would effectively erase some hard-won gains by workers. Obama and the unions are reportedly discussing some kind of grandfather clause proposal that would exempt existing plans and only tax new plans.
Elsewhere in our high-deductible democracy, it turns out that health insurers secretly steered more than $20 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to oppose health reform while publicly professing to support the effort, according to Josh Harkinson of Mother Jones. The bagman was America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). While AHIP was soliciting donations to run attack ads, AHIP's top lobbyist, Karen Ignagni penned an op/ed in the Washington Post assuring the public that AHIP supported reform.
Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly hopes that the scandal will give ammunition to Democrats in the last big push to pass health care reform: "Policymakers struggling to resolve differences on the final reform bill may want to keep a simple adage in mind: Don't let AHIP's duplicitous campaign win."
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.
Coakley still with a 90.6% chance to win. Normally, a lead of 8.2% would give Coakley a 97.5% chance to win. This is because only 7 of the 138 closest statewide general elections from 2004-2009 show a difference of 8.2% of greater from the final polling average to the final result (((7 / 138)/2) = 0.025).
However, because of the difficulties associated with special election polling, her chances of winning are only 90.6%. This is assuming average polling error in special elections to be the same as primary elections (7.0%), instead of general elections (3.9%). This makes a lead of 8.2% equivalent to a lead of 4.6%. In the 138 closest statewide general elections from 2004-2009, there were 26 instances where the final polling margin was 4.55% or more divergent from the final vote result (((26 / 138)/2) = 0.094).
What about those rumored polls? No rumored polls are included in my averages. Until those polls are released to the public, they will stay that way. This includes the rumor of a Republican poll showing Coakley up 11%, a Boston Herald poll showing Coakley up only 1%., and Coakley's internal polling showing her up only 5%. Let's look at each of these rumors:
Even if the 11% poll exists, it was taken too long ago to be included in the final averages, so it doesn't matter.
The 1% poll from the Boston Herald was first rumored 5 days ago. Media outlets don't sit on sponsored polls that long. It doesn't exist. It was either referring to the PPP poll that eventually showed Brown up 1%, or it was just bullshit.
Taegan Goddard's rumor about Coakley's internal polling only showing her up 5% must refer to the one-day sample of her internal polling on the 11th. This is because Coakley released an internal poll that was conducted from January 8th through the 10th, and Goddard reported the rumor on the evening of the 12th. At that time, the interviews for internal polling on the night of the 12th would still have been ongoing. So, even if Goddard is correct, he is referring to a one-day sample, which would have a high margin of error, and as such is not to be taken seriously.
In short, the rumored polls either don't exist, or they don't matter.
Why do the polls diverge so much? Which one is right? First, the polls don't actually diverge. As Mark Blumenthal showed on Sunday, they just project different turnout levels. All pollsters seem to agree that the higher the turnout, the larger Coakley's advantage becomes (and vice-versa). The campaign is tied among those who are "absolutely certain" to vote, but Coakley has wide leads among those who are less certain to vote.
The best bet, given the success of polling averages in predicting elections, is to just average all of the polls. With an average error of only 2.6% (actually 2.57%) from the final 15-day average to the final result, simple polling averages have proven to be the most accurate measure of election results available. It is more likely that there is a kernel of truth in all the polls than absolute accuracy in one or two of them.
Doesn't Rasmussen show the campaign tightening? My research shows, pretty conclusively, that including multiple polls from the same polling firm in the average, rather than just the most recent poll from each polling firm (which is what I did in 2008), reduces the error in the polling averages. So, the issue isn't if one polling firm shows the campaign tightening, but if the overall average is tightening. On that front, the Rasmussen poll did show the campaign tightening, but only from 9.8% to 8.2%.
What is the lesson in all of this for Democrats? This one is easy: the political environment is terrible for Democrats, and they are going to lose seats in 2010. Duh.
Why is Democratic turnout so low? This is very hard to say. No one has conducted a survey asking people who voted in 2008, but who do not intend to vote in 2010, why they don't intend to vote in 2010. Until such a poll is conducted, every theory about why Democratic turnout is down is just pure speculation. In most cases, pundits will just say that Democratic turnout is down because Democrats aren't doing what that pundit thinks they should do.
If Scott Brown wins, then the health care bill will not pass. There will be no 60th vote for Democrats in the Senate, meaning they have to go through Olympia Snowe. However, many members of Congress might well be scared off by the Scott Brown win, thus causing some lost votes on the right. Also, with everything the House Progressives feel like it has already had to swallow, some votes will probably be lost on the left, too. With only a three-vote margin in the House, a zero vote margin in the Senate, and the need to restart the month-long House-Senate negotiation process entirely, it is very difficult to envision the bill passing in any form if Scott Brown wins. In all likelihood, the whole thing unravels at the finish line.
With so much at stake, Dems, unions piling on ads. Given everything that is at stake in the Massachusetts special elections, both SEIU and the DSCC are making major advertising purchases in the campaign. They know Scott Brown is a longshot, but that he can still win. And they know what that means for the health care bill.
When is the election? The election takes place in six days, on Tuesday, the 19th.
This is the main political event in the country right now. If you want to help out, visit Martha coakley's website, and take action.
Only 34% of Americans oppose the health care bill from the right, making this position less popular than legalizing marijuana.
There have been four public polls on the question of marijuana legalization over the past year. The results were as follows:
Should marijuana be legalized?
Pollster
Date
Legalize It
Average
2009
40.5%
Gallup
Oct '09
44
ABC / WaPo
Apr '09
46
CBS / NYT
Mar 09
31
CBS / NYT
Jan '09
41
In 2009, 40-41% of the country favored the legalization of marijuana. By comparison, looking at relevant polling, over the last two months only 34% of the country opposes the health care bill because it goes too far:
Does health care reform go too far / is too liberal?
Only 34% of the country opposes the health care bill because they think it goes too far or is too liberal. That is decidedly less than the 40-41% of the country that faces marijuana legalization.
With only 34% of the country opposing the health care bill from the right, that means it would take a congressional district with a Cook partisan voting index of, roughly speaking, Republican +16 for the majority of people in a given congressional district to oppose the bill from the right. No Democratic Senators come from a state with such a right-leaning electorate, and only four Democratic members of the House represent such districts: Bobby Bright (AL-02), Walt Minnick (ID-01), Gene Taylor (MS-04) and Chet Edwards (TX-17). A handful of others Democrats are close, represetning districts in the range of R+12 to R +14.
None of this makes the health care bill popular, or that a consensus has been reached on health care reform. However, what it does show is that right-wing opposition to health care is nowhere close to a majority position nationwide. There will be almost no negative political repercussions for the Democratic members of Congress and the Senate who vote in favor of the health care bill.
A lot of Democrats are going to lose in 2010, but it does not appear that many will lose specifically because of their support for the health care bill.
Over the last week, tens of thousands of people have sent a letter to President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid telling them to finish health reform right. Joining them, hundreds of organizations who care about health reform - from huge international unions to small community groups - and health care and political experts like Jacob Hacker, Wendell Potter, and Mike Lux have also signed on to the letter.
With one voice, we're all fighting for some very important things as the House and Senate health care bills head into conference to be reconciled, things like the public option, affordable health care for all, and strong insurance regulations.
Can you join us and sign your support? Just click the banner at the top of this site, or click over to http://FinishReformRight.com
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.
On Christmas Eve morning, Senate Democrats followed through on their promise to pass their version of a health insurance reform bill before the Christmas Holiday, delivering what has been hailed by many liberal commentators in major media outlets as an "early Christmas gift." However, American workers concerned about the rising costs of health care, the poor quality of service provided by private insurance for those who can even afford it, and the millions of people left behind by for-profit, market based health care ought not get too excited about the Affordable Health Care for America Act. This "early gift" is more like a lump of coal!
Health care workers, activists, and patients, as well as labor leaders and rank workers in general -- many of whom voted the Democrats back into power in the "hope" they'd deliver a Universal, National Health Service -- have been left feeling confused, frustrated, and downright betrayed. The Senate bill, like the House version, cedes even more power to the already influential private, for-profit insurance industry: the same industry that financed the Democratic Party and President Obama's victorious electoral campaigns in 2008 while simultaneously padding the war chest of the Republican Party. They also bankrolled the fear-mongering and reactionary tea party "movement," which turned the longstanding American tradition of town hall meetings into an "at your own risk" excursion in 2009. That is to say, the health care industry funded both "sides" of the "debate," and now stands to reap a tremendous profit from their investment; all at the expense of the American working class.
The Senate bill differs little from the version passed in the House back in November. For the first time, individuals will be required by law to purchase insurance policies and maintain coverage, or pay punitive tax fines for non-compliance. Much of the language of the regressive Stupak Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion," is included in the Senate bill. A tax on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans will hit unionized workers especially hard and undermine generations of struggle by workers for a decent standard of living. The insurance industry will receive billions of dollars in additional profits, guaranteed by the personal mandate, fine scheme and taxpayer funded subsidies, and gain access to new markets as the privatization of Medicare/Medicaid continues unabated and Medicare faces upwards of $400 billion in cuts. The industry also gets to keep its decades-old anti-trust exemption.
This scheme will cost American taxpayers over $800 billion dollars over the next decade and will do next to nothing to control costs; handing the great bulk of that money to the same private, for-profit insurers who have made a killing (literally!) denying Americans coverage or providing extremely limited and unreliable coverage, driving up costs and forcing many working class individuals and families into bankruptcy and poverty. Even more despicable is the 12 year market protection extended to Big Pharma for name-brand and high-tech prescription drugs, effectively a government guarantee of private corporate profits. Over 20 million people will still be left uninsured by the Senate bill, and countless more will be left without access to the health care they really need because, as many people have learned in the recent economic crisis, insurance does not guarantee access to actual care, especially not "affordable" care.
Of course, the only health care guaranteed to be "affordable" to all is universal, FREE health care and we can only have this by demanding, organizing for and winning a "Medicare for all" reform that includes everyone and leaves no one out, along the lines of the now-defunct HR 676 or SB 703. Public opinion polling has consistently shown for nearly a decade that Americans prefer such a national universal program over market-based proposals, and back in 2005/06 many leading Democrats paid lip service to such legislation, even promising to pass it if only American voters would deliver Democrats a "super majority" in the House and Senate. Well, the Democrats got their wish, and all American workers got was this lousy bill for $800 billion, which we get the "gift" of paying for over the next decade.
As many Americans crowd the post-holiday lines at our local department stores, seeking to return or exchange unwanted gifts, we ought to remember that the party-line vote to approve the Senate Democrats' bill was 39-60, with the Republicans favoring doing nothing and the Democrats supporting what amounts to a multi-billion dollar handout to the industry which is directly responsible for the death of 60 people in the US each and every day and the bankruptcy of thousands. Neither of these corporate, capitalist political parties represents the interests of the American working class, who make up the vast majority. America needs a working class party, an independent, mass party of labor based on the unions to fight uncompromisingly for the real interests of the majority. Only thus can we end the rationing of health care services based on economic privilege and win FREE, QUALITY health care for all as a human right!
It is both small comfort, and an important lesson, for public option advocates that Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson have become the most unpopular and electorally imperiled members of the entire Senate. This has happened largely because of their hostage-taking actions on the healthcare bill.
Joe Lieberman's actions on the health care bill antagonized constituents both for and against it, and in the wake of that he finds his approval rating at just 25% with 67% of voters in the state disapproving of him.(...)
It's clear that his actions on the Senate health care bill have made a large contribution to his falling popularity. 68% of voters say they disagree with how he handled the issue to just 19% giving him support. Among people who support the health care bill 84% say they disapprove of Lieberman's actions but even among those opposed to the initiative 52% say they disagree with how Lieberman handled himself.
This isn't the first poll showing that Lieberman took a big hit over his backstab on the public option. Two weeks ago, CNN polling showed the exact same results, much to the mystification of D.C. political writers.
Lieberman's actions appealed to no one. Now, he is toast, even among Republicans. A warm body will defeat him in 2012.
If Governor Dave Heineman challenges Nelson for the Senate job, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows the Republican would get 61% of the vote while Nelson would get just 30%. Nelson was reelected to a second Senate term in 2006 with 64% of the vote.
Nelson's health care vote is clearly dragging his numbers down. Just 17% of Nebraska voters approve of the deal their senator made on Medicaid in exchange for his vote in support of the plan.
Nelson, like Lieberman, did not make himself more popular among those who oppose the health care bill, or the public option, with his actions. Both supporters and opponents of both the health care bill and the public option were largely disgusted with what they viewed as personal power aggrandizement.
Their actions earned both Nelson and Lieberman featured appearances on Sunday D.C. talk shows, but it also made voters of all sorts loathe them. It would appear that people don't like members of Congress who take enormous pieces of legislation hostage for personal reasons. Nelson and Lieberman are now the most unpopular Senators in their home states in the entire country, far more unpopular than even Harry Reid, Chris Dodd or Blanche Lincoln.
All of this makes it quite amusing that ongoing hostage-taker, Bart Stupak, is strongly considering a run for Governor of Michigan. What a fool. It seems that he really believes that the only people who hate his hostage-taking actions are from New York City. The Nelson and Lieberman polling quoted above shows that very few people, whether in your home state or nationally, and whether among people who agree with your positions or not, like it when members of Congress take hostages in this manner.
Man, I hope Stupak does run for Governor. It would be an easy way to get him out of elected office altogether. It would also be nice to see another health care hostage-taker go down in flames, mystified about why people don't like him anymore.
Finally, I think this is a lesson for public option advocates, and our high-profile hostage-taking strategy called The Progressive Block. It seems clear to me now that a strategy like that only works if you build up public support for it (which we most definitely did not do among the Democratic primary electorate), or if the fight is far more low-profile (such as IMF funding in the Afghanistan supplemental). High-profile hostage taking just doesn't work from the left (or, as polling shows, from the right or the center, either) Voters of all sorts, including those on the left, just don't like it, and they will punish you given the opportunity. It is indeed small comfort that the mendacious hostage-takers who stopped us are now wildly unpopular both at home and around the country, but it is also a warning that we would have been in the same position if we had become the hostage takers ourselves.
Here is where the health care fight stands as of this afternoon:
A complete list of the 50+ differences between the House and Senate bills can be read here (PDF).
It is official that those differences will be worked out informally, without the formal meetings that would have resulted in Republicans being invited to the table.
Hearing that the White House is leaning on Congressional leaders to move the date for the President's State of the Union address -- remember, Congress has to officially invite him -- to February 2, in order to give House and Senate health care negotiators more time to get closer to a finished product. The President wants to be able to talk about health care in the past tense -- or nearly in the past tense -- during the speech, and doesn't want to have to pretend that negotiations are over when they really aren't.
It is likely that everything will be wrapped up by February 2nd, but not by January 19th. As such, expect the State of the Union to be pushed back.
All of this means that the Massachusetts special election for Senate on January 19th really is the last remaining obstacle to passing a health insurance bill. It is both highly unlikely that Republican Scott Brown will win, or that any progressive groups will support his campaign in a last-ditch effort to defeat the bill. However, it really is the only play to beat the bill (and a move that I would most definitely not endorse).
There are about three more weeks of the health care fight left. This is an open thread for any other thoughts and developments on health care.
Two Democratic senators unexpectedly announced their resignations on Tuesday. Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Chris Dodd (D-CT) announced that they would not seek reelection when their terms expire in 2010. Hopefully, health care reform will already have passed by then, but the departure of these senators will have implications for health care policy.
As far as the Democratic majority in the Senate is concerned, the two resignations probably cancel each other out. As a relatively conservative 30-year incumbent, Dorgan was thought to be the only Democrat who could win a seat in conservative North Dakota. Dodd, on the other hand, is deeply unpopular for his role in the financial crisis, but hails from a deep blue state, so it should be easy to replace him with another Democrat. In fact, as Eric Kleefeld reports for Talking Points Memo, Dodd's resignation improves the Democrats' chances of holding that seat.
As Jodi Jacobson explains in RH Reality Check, losing Dorgan would be a setback for reproductive rights. While Dorgan has a mixed record on choice, "Given his state, Dorgan's voting record is pretty progressive on at least some issues otherwise driven completely by ideology," Jacobson writes.
Dodd is reliably pro-choice, but the pro-choice credentials of the candidate favored to take his place, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, are even more distinguished.
Last year, Blumenthal sued the Bush administration over so-called "conscience clauses" for the Department of Health and Human Services which would have given employees more latitude to refuse to provide medical care that they disapproved of on religious grounds. (The Obama administration later reversed the rule.) In 1995, Blumenthal and the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against two anti-abortion protesters under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. "Our goal was to defuse a volatile situation before it escalated into a bloodbath, such as the fatal shootings in Brookline, Massachusetts," Blumenthal explained at the time. Blumenthal and DOJ prevailed in court in 1997.
In other health care news, an unnamed Senate aide told the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog that the Democrats are planning to streamline the passage of the health care reform bill by skipping the conference committee. Normally, the House and Senate versions of a bill are combined in conference. This time, Democrats may skip that step by hammering out a deal that is acceptable to the Senate, having the House pass that bill, and then having the Senate pass the same legislation. That way, Democrats can circumvent some procedural hurdles in the Senate.
According to Kevin Drum of Mother Jones, skipping conference has become routine for big Democratic bills. These days, thanks to stricter rules about what can be added in conference, the House and the Senate are more likely to reconcile big bills through the aforementioned "ping pong" process.
John Nichols of The Nation argues that skipping conference will leave progressives out in the cold. Until now, a lot of progressive energy has been focused on strengthening certain provisions of the Senate bill in conference. If the Democrats decide to skip conference, that means that all the power will be in the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and a handful of their closest allies.
Finally, Monica Potts of TAPPED discusses a new study that purports to show that the so-called "g-spot" doesn't exist. Headlines are proclaiming that the g-spot is a myth. The results of the study have been misinterpreted in the general rush to proclaim that science has proven women wrong about their bodies. What the study really showed is that genes have little to do with whether a woman thinks she has one.
These results suggest that the g-spot isn't a unique organ encoded in our genetic plan, like a spleen or a kidney, but that there's no doubt that the front wall of the vagina exists, nor that some women report orgasms from stimulating that area. What other anatomical questions are investigated with surveys? Do you have a pancreas? Chances are you've never directly observed your pancreas. Whether you say "yes" depends whether you've read that humans have them.
Whether women agreed that they had g-spots had more to do with their age. Younger women, raised in an era where women's magazines assert that g-spots are a standard part of female anatomy, were more likely to believe they had them. What this study was really measuring was a general belief in the existence of g-spots, which has no genetic component. Belief in the pancreas has no genetic component either, but it doesn't follow that these organs are mythical.
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.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
