Welcome to the Future

Two telling stories in today's Boston Globe. The first is this much-ballyhooed statement by Democrat-turned-independent State Treasurer (and gubernatorial candidate) Timothy P. Cahill:

"If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years."

He's urging the president and Congressional leaders to "come up with a new plan that does not threaten to bankrupt this country." These are strong words from Cahill, not exactly a right-wing hack.

Perhaps Cahill's fears are reinforced by another article in the Globe, one that hasn't gotten as much play. This story shows what "health-care reform" in Massachusetts has wrought: skyrocketing costs in an already expensive medical system with the prospect of rationing to come. Here are a few snapshots of what could be upcoming for the nation as a whole (emphasis added):

Moore has filed a bill proposing to cap payments to hospitals and doctors at 110 percent of what the federal Medicare program pays for medical care. But, he said yesterday, insurers and the state could save money even with a higher cap.

Governor Deval Patrick filed a measure last month that would give state officials power to review and reject rates set by hospitals, physician groups, medical imaging centers, and insurers....

Last year, a state commission proposed radical changes to the way providers are paid, with the goal of slowing the rise in the use of medical services. It urged scrapping the current fee-for-service system and paying providers a per-patient annual fee, called a global payment, to cover all of a patient’s medical care.

The state secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. JudyAnn Bigby, and other Patrick administration officials have completed a detailed plan for adopting global payments and are expected to brief legislators on it by next week, Moore said.

But given that global payments could take five years or more to implement, he said “a quick fix’’ is need ed “to stop the bleeding,’’ particularly for owners of small businesses, who are struggling to pay soaring health insurance premiums. He said provider rate limits could slow the growth in health care costs more quickly and are a likely component of any Senate measure.

Government bureaucrats setting prices? Check. Capping payments to doctors? Check. Centralized complex mechanisms? Check. Rationing? Check. What's not to love!?

Placing limits on what doctors can spend per patient would necessarily limit the care options for each patient. This is a kind of backdoor rationing with a one-size-fits-all flavor. Part of the "progressive" dream of making care more "efficient" perhaps hinges upon this limitation in medical care. Despite the smoke and mirrors of partisan rhetoric, there are significant costs of so-called "universal health-care."

It is very likely that many of the excessive costs of our current health-care system are due to the structural inefficiencies of a few centralized providers. The Massachusetts health-care experiment and Democratic leadership in Congress seem to be doubling down on the hopes of centralization. So far, how is that bet working out?

FDL has a new whip count: 190 Yes-206 No (with leaners included: 205-209). What's interesting in this list is that there are many more members leaning to vote "yes" than leaning to vote "no." The "no" block is pretty solid, which is why Pelosi and co. are going to have to do some digging. Some more analysis at Hot Air here.

Sleight of Wrath

Ezra Klein takes the chainsaw to a David Brooks column, calling it a column that "can't be taken seriously" due to some alleged factual inaccuracies. Klein pounces on this paragraph (on the use of reconciliation to pass health-care "reform" in the Senate):

Reconciliation has been used with increasing frequency. That was bad enough. But at least for the Bush tax cuts or the prescription drug bill, there was significant bipartisan support. Now we have pure reconciliation mixed with pure partisanship.

Klein rightfully points out that the Medicare prescription drug reform under Bush was not passed via reconciliation (you mean you can pass major health-care-related measures without using reconciliation!?).

However, if Klein's going to attack Brooks on the matter of facts, he had best be sure his own facts are right. Well, check out this math:

The budget reconciliation process was used six times between 1980 and 1989. It was used four times between 1990 and 1999. It was used five times between 2000 and 2009. And it has been used zero times since 2010.

So Klein says, which suggests that reconciliation has been used 15 times since 1980. However, it seems as though reconciliation has been used 22 times. Klein's missing some reconciliation votes here. (However, there is some weight to his broader point that reconciliation was used the most in the 1980s. It was used heavily there but mostly for---I don't know---the reconciliation of budgetary issues.)

Klein also has a slight rhetorical sleight of hand in this claim:

Nor has reconciliation been limited to bills with "significant bipartisan support." To use Brooks's example of the tax cuts, the 2003 tax cuts passed the Senate 50-50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. Two Democrats joined with the Republicans in that effort. Georgia's Zell Miller, who would endorse George W. Bush in 2004 and effectively leave the Democratic Party, and Nebraska's Ben Nelson. So I'd say that's one Democrat. One Democrat alongside 49 Republicans. That's not significant bipartisan support.

OK, but that's only the 2003 tax cut bill. The 2001 tax cut bill passed 58-33, with a thoroughly bipartisan majority. Brooks might---understandably---have had that vote in mind.

It is true that reconciliation votes have not always been bipartisan love affairs, but does that mean that Brooks's anxiety about a hyper-partisanization of the Senate is wholly misplaced? I realize there's a school of ideological "progressive" thought that loves partisan acrimony and division, but it is not an unworthy position to doubt that such division is good for the country.

See also Rich Lowry's take on this.

A few updated whip counts here and here. Good point from the Hotline:

Now that there's a bill, expect the arm-twisting to begin in earnest. If Dems are able to move votes, that momentum is likely to build in the next several days.

Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL), who voted "yes" last year for health-care reform, is now leaning a little bit in the "no" direction. He's open to being swayed.

Action for Action's Sake

This National Journal poll of anonymous Capitol Hill lawmakers reveals an interesting trend: members of both parties believe that passing Obamacare will help them in November! 77% of the Democrats believe that passage will help them electorally. Michael G. Franc wonders if some of them are merely mouthing the party line, but he suspects that they believe much of what they're saying.

If so, it seems that many Democrats have fallen prey to the Washington prejudice of doing something and the Washington assumption that the public will applaud action (even action they oppose) instead of inaction. Here are the sample responses:

Help a lot

"It would regain a lot of the energy in our own base. Otherwise, we will be in deep trouble."

"We will have achieved something important."

"The Democrats need to get something passed. Otherwise, they will have fallen victim to nothing more than fear-driven attacks."

"It will help a lot of people, show that Democrats can act, and get the 'sausage-making' off the news."

"If it passes, people see it's not the end of the world and learn more about its benefits. The more they know about it, the more supportive they are. Best of all, we can begin talking about something else."

"It will help a lot to show that [President Obama] can make Washington work. But the name of the game in November will be the economy -- just like it always is."

"It's getting something done, stupid."

Help a little

"Despite a Republican and insurance industry campaign to bring reform to its knees, I still think many Americans will give Democrats credit for bringing much-needed change."

"Democrats have to deliver. We are too far into this."

"Passage means a Rose Garden signing ceremony and some immediate benefits. Failure to pass means incompetence despite our large majorities."

"That's the best-case scenario. Even many Democrats opposed to the health care bill realize it needs to be settled and put behind us."

I think many Democrats overestimate the PR value of a "Rose Garden signing ceremony." While the Washington elite may be obsessed with questions of party management, the public is much more concerned about things like the actual effects of a bill. After all, would voters be happier with a highway department that actively destroyed roads (at least it can do something!) or one that may not always be the best at keeping roads in good shape?

A few rejoinders to these Democratic musings:

• It is not this bill or no bill. A moderate, targeted bill, which Obama and co. could talk up as a "generational" achievement, could still be passed.
• This issue can be "settled" in more ways that just kowtowing to the Speaker's wishes. Nothing is stopping Democrats from talking about health-care reform (nothing, that is, other than the Democrats themselves).
• "The base" only gets you so far. Massachusetts has one of the biggest, most connected Democratic "bases" in the nation. Did that base get Martha Coakley into the Senate?
• Moderates might find passage of this bill an even heavier anchor around their ankles than the failure of this bill.

The Speaker and the president have, it seems, been somewhat successful in creating a legislative horizon, in which the fate of "health-care reform" turns upon the passage of whatever flavor of legislation party leaders have currently come up with. Buying into this myth may have negative political consequences for Democrats and unfortunate public consequences for our nation.

Not Inevitable

There are a few possible inferences from the push from House leadership to talk about having a vote on the health-care bill at the end of next week.

• They believe they have enough votes to pass the "Slaughter rule" or the Senate bill or whatever and want to push now, while they still have a seeming majority.
• They sense their position is weakening but still believe they have the votes now.
• They don't know whether they have the votes or not but just want to end the battle one way or another.
• They don't have the votes now but are in part bluffing by talking about putting their position to a vote, hoping to corral undecideds with the appearance of being confident.
• They know they don't have the votes but want to have a last charge up the hill of Obamacare in a display of progressive glory.

All of these possibilities suggest one thing: approval of the Senate's bill is not inevitable. Inevitability is one of the strongest forces on Capitol Hill, especially when members are considering voting against their party leadership. Very few in Congress like to be on the losing side; they like it even less when that losing side goes against the wishes of their party leaders.

But this measure is not inevitable. And it would not be a futile act for a Democrat to vote against this bill. There are matters of policy, some of them outlined by Mike Capuano (D-MA), among others. The new taxes, the increased premiums, the diminution of Congressional power, the centralized control of the health-care system, the ax taken to existing programs, etc. etc. etc.

There is the fact that, in a vote this tight (or at least the vote will be very tight if the measure passes), every vote matters. A Democrat voting no can actually help push the political debate in the direction of a targeted, sustainable reform. Voting "no" would not be an act of mere political vanity but a contribution to the contours of the public debate.

There is also the matter of political survival, a not wholly unworthy political motivation. Even if the Congress does pass a radioactive health-care bill, every Democrat need not be stuck on a sinking ship. Indeed, the best way to distance oneself from this measure and from an unpopular Congress would be to take a stand against a bill so unpopular, so toxic, that leadership doesn't even want to talk about the mechanisms of getting it passed and may even hope to allow members of Congress to vote for Obamacare without actually voting for it. That's the level of conviction that leadership has about this bill. Democrats serious about standing up against cronyism and secrecy and public venom could do worse than attacking the bill and its process. A personal connection with voters---one in part forged by listening to them and standing with them against this bill---could go a long way in November.

All of this is to say that the passage of this bill is not inevitable, and opponents of the Senate bill should not lose hope. The full strength of the national Democratic machine is being brought to bear against waverers and Congressional free-thinkers. But public activism defeated this machine in Massachusetts in January. There's no reason to believe that the public's Army of Davids can't win the rematch, too.

Michelle Malkin has a great roundup of resources for those interested in stopping the Obamacare train. Between phone calls, email addresses, and public demonstrations, there is plenty that private citizens can do to push back against the machine. Every vote matters here. Opponents of Obamacare need to focus on wavering Democrats who voted "yes" as well as "no" on Obamacare. Here's a good list, which shows the "no" votes have an advantage. Opponents should not merely focus on moderate and right-leaning Democrats; they should also make common cause with lefty opponents of Obamacare, many of whom have sensible reasons for opposing it.

There are a number of subterranean cracks in Pelosi's coalition, many of them covered over by the thinnest layer of dirt. If she does have a majority (which is, at the moment, a big assumption), it isn't a strong one. The right amount of pressure, debate, and public scrutiny could shatter that fragile alliance of partisanship, ideology, and fear.

Now, as the health-care battle recommences---now is not the time to give up hope.

Capuano Plays Hardball

Democratic Rep. Mike Capuano (MA-8), who voted in favor of the House's version of health-care reform in November, has released a letter raising a number of concerns with the Senate bill. Here are a few of them:

(2) DSH cuts - Currently, Medicare and Medicaid provide extra payments to hospitals that serve higher-than-average shares of people without health insurance. These hospitals are called Disproportionate Share Hospitals, or DSH. In the 8th District for example, Boston Medical Center and Cambridge Health Alliance both depend on millions of dollars a year in DSH payments. The Senate bill would cut DSH payments by $42 Billion per year, as opposed to the $20 Billion cut proposed in the House. Such cuts, made before a new health care system is allowed to fully develop, would curtail the amount and quality of health care provided by DSH hospitals and their uninsured patients, thereby driving these sick and poor persons to other hospitals that will not be equipped or paid to handle the medical and social challenges they present. I am looking into this aspect of the Senate bill as well.

(3) Value Index - The Senate bill includes a proposal to adopt a so-called "value index"; the House bill does not include this proposal. It would adjust the way payments to physicians and other non-hospital providers are calculated. Supporters suggest it would encourage practices that are more frugal by rewarding "low cost areas". Massachusetts is considered a "high cost area" due to various factors, including the regional cost of living, the relative poverty of the people served, and our financial commitment to educating America's next generation of doctors. There are no limits on how much a physician's payments could be reduced by this so-called "value index" and the method has never been tested at the physician level. Due to the probability of much lower payment rates to Massachusetts doctors, this proposal seems as though it would influence (1) where doctors practice (discouraging practice in Massachusetts), (2) how they treat patients in so-called "high cost areas", and (3) how many doctors will be trained in America. Absent a thorough study of the impact of this so-called "value index", it seems to me that it could seriously harm the quality of care in Massachusetts.

(4) Super IMAC - The Senate bill contains a proposal that would shift authority to set Medicare policies and reimbursement rates from the Congress to a board appointed by the President. This proposal has been referred to as the "Super Independent Medicare Advisory Council" by many. The House bill does not contain such a proposal, although it does require formal studies on many specific initiatives to improve the quality and cost effectiveness of the American health care system. Traditionally, reimbursement rates from Medicare are based on many factors including efficiency, complexity of the medical issues, whether the provider also bears costs associated with medical education for future doctors, whether the provider engages in research that advances medicine and the cost of living in different areas. Some argue that Medicare should focus ONLY on cost containment without regard for all the other factors that affect the cost of care and that have been traditionally considered. I am concerned that if this appointed board adopts the cost-containment only approach, Massachusetts could lose BILLIONS of dollars PER YEAR. Such a loss would hurt our world-renowned medical schools, teaching hospitals, and research programs. Those losses would undermine the quality of care we provide to our own citizens and slow progress in biomedical sciences globally. To make matters worse, I am concerned that it would quickly and inevitably result in Massachusetts losing tens of thousands of jobs and would seriously undermine one of our region's economic engines. Other regions with heavy concentrations of health care would feel a similar impact, such as New York City, Philadelphia and Los Angeles. Finally, to add insult to injury, the elected representatives of the people impacted would no longer have a say in accepting, rejecting or amending any new approaches - the entire decision would be up to Presidential appointees. Moreover, I ask people who are happy to entrust these decisions to persons appointed by President Obama to remember that there will be other Presidents, with, perhaps, very different levels of commitment to medical care.

Members of Congress have made points like this on both sides of the aisle. The last may be one of the more pressing to members of Congress; passage of Super IMAC would represent a significant blow to the power of Congress and give the executive branch even more power to intervene in the health-care of the nation.

Martha Coakley won Capuano's district in January 2009, so he might not be purely motivated by electoral concerns here. This may be an attempt to extract as many concessions from leadership as possible. It may also be a sign of principled disagreement, one from which he might not be swayed.

It's Happening

As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) tries, without much success, to round up a new Gang of 14 to forge a bipartisan consensus of health-care reform in the Senate, Democrats who are now proving deaf to the calls of bipartisan cooperation might pay attention to these rumblings from Harry Reid:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pledged on Wednesday to take a serious look at revising the filibuster rules at the beginning of the next Congress, calling the current level of obstruction in the Senate unacceptable.

In a reflection of the party's commitment to changing the parliamentary rules, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) followed the majority leader by saying that his committee would address the topic soon.

"The rules committee is going to start holding hearings on how to undo the filibuster rule," said Schumer, who chairs the Senate Rules Committee. The New York Democrat told the Huffington Post after the speech that the hearings would take place two or three weeks from now.

Pledges are only words, and "serious looks" in Washington are often anything but serious. But this story does indicate the increasing interest in "reforming"/doing away with the filibuster for the Democratic leadership in the Senate.

Furthermore, the attempt to bypass the filibuster using reconciliation may be a tactic that leadership is just getting started with, as Senate leaders weigh passing other measures via reconciliation.

The loss of the filibuster would likely be a significant blow to the power of moderates on both sides of the aisle. As many "progressives" have noted (often with deep disappointment in their voices), the demands of folks like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu would not be taken nearly as seriously if Democrats did not need at least 60 votes to pass health-care reform. The filibuster also encourages members of one party to work across the aisle with members of another party in order to pass legislation. This fact also usually ends up helping Senate moderates, often giving them a hand in legislation even when they're in the minority.

Is it really in the long-term interest of the US Senate and the United States to make senators mere bobbleheads for leadership, nodding whenever the leader says "yes"? Harry Reid might not, according to many polls, be long for the Senate, but moderate senators ought to consider the long-term implications of the path that leadership is on.

The Boston Globe has an interesting story on a possible GOP resurgence in New England, noting increased Republican activity in Congressional districts in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

A Democratic Congressman claims that supporters of Obamacare only have 201 votes, well short of the number that they need. Hot Air has some more speculations, as does Ace. Hotline has a good, thorough list of possible persuadables.

Diffusion of Power

Ben Smith passes along this note from a "prominent Chicago Democrat":

First, court intrigue is the way of politics in Chicago and Illinois.

Second, Ax's -- and to a degree Obama's -- problem is that they aren't used to governance that requires multi-party and intra-party skills, where the chief executive isn't in absolute control of all levers of government. The "Chicago Way" is profoundly misunderstood. It isn't, first and foremost, about bullying politics; it's about absolute control and the means to achieve it. The "Chicago Way" would never work in DC, and I believe their frame of reference doesn't allow them to see DC otherwise.

Absolute control has often served as a key goading mirage for presidents. If only they could achieve it, if only they could impose their will upon the whole of the United States and usher in a Utopian age! However, American federal politics are built upon contention (between parties, between branches of government, and so forth).

The attempts by the White House and Congressional leadership to ram through some kind of health-care "reform" show the difficulty of achieving this level of control. Pelosi and Reid have been trying hard to muster this control, by releasing bills just before they are voted on and twisting the arms of recalcitrant Democrats right out of their sockets, but, for all their cajoling and threats and promises, they run into a serious problem: the voters, and not leadership figures, have the power to return a member of Congress to office. They also run into the problem that many in Congress are quite rightly suspicious of attempts to centralize power in the hands of the legislative few.

The Weekly Standard notes at least two other potential yes-to-no switchers in the House: Dan Lipinski (D-IL) and Jim Oberstar (D-MN). Both have said they will not vote for a health-care bill with federal funding for abortion.

Don't count on House retirees to switch to back Obamacare: Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) says they might stick to their guns.

Health-Care's Twin Edges

House Democrats from swing districts face a troubling dilemma. No one wants to be the 216th or so vote in favor of the Senate's version of Obamacare. That would allow every Republican running against endangered moderates to slam them as the final vote in favor of a radically unpopular bill. However, no one wants to be the 216th or so vote against Obamacare. Then the wrath of leadership can fall upon them.

That may be one of the reason on-the-fence members of the House have increased incentive for forming blocs. It's harder for leadership to punish/threaten a group than it is for it to punish/threaten a lone lawmaker. That's why Stupak is probably trying as much as he can to keep his coalition together. If it starts to fray, leadership might smell blood.

There's one probable switch against Obamacare: Michael Arcuri (D-NY) is saying he will very likely vote against the Senate bill on the House floor.

Voting for Courage

Courage! Courage! That's what Democrats most need now! Or so Nancy Pelosi tells us:

“Our members, every one of them, wants health care,” Ms. Pelosi said. “They know that this will take courage. It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare. And many of the same forces that were at work decades ago are at work again against this bill.”

There is perhaps some irony in Speaker Pelosi's appeal to Medicare when one considers that a centerpiece of many Democratic proposals on health-care has been cutting Medicare, but let's leave that to the side for the moment.

In terms of political and bipartisan support, Medicare and Social Security are on a different plane from Obamacare. Social Security passed the House 372-33 and the Senate 77-6 in 1935. Medicare passed the House 313-115 and the Senate 68-21. In both cases, overwhelming (and overwhelmingly bipartisan) majorities passed significant changes in the American architecture of power.

You see, FDR and LBJ (along with members of Congress) had this crazy idea: go out convince voters and politicians to support a bill. And you know what? They did! Medicare was hugely popular, while Obamacare remains hugely unpopular.

Democrats in the House and Senate could create a moderate, focused bill that could probably rack up big majorities, but, so far, Congressional leadership and the president have chosen not to. Now putting forward a moderate sensible bill, in this political climate---that would be an act of real courage.

Whipping the House Vote

These House Democrats are worth watching on health-care. They voted in favor of the House version last year, which passed 220-215. Below, I've listed the Democrats representing districts McCain won in 2008 as well as some Democrats in Obama-won districts who might be open to switching to vote against Obamacare. The allies of reform moderation may only need to pick up a few of these votes to succeed.

I very much emphasize that this is a work in progress. If you have any other names to recommend or corrections or suggestions about new developments or arguments, please send me an email (probably the best way to get noticed) or post info. in the comments.

The data comes from CQ's invaluable 2008 election atlas; the ratings for various races in the notes are also often borrowed from CQ. The New York Times has a list of House Democrats who voted against the bill last year.

UPDATE: Jim Geraghty passes along this list of possible vote switches (from yes to no and from no to yes). Meanwhile, some speculate that Pelosi may be able to flip 10 or so "no" votes, or at least they're sitting on the fence...

3/7 UPDATE: The Weekly Standard notes at least two other potential yes-to-no switchers in the House: Dan Lipinski (D-IL) and Jim Oberstar (D-MN). Both have said they will not vote for a health-care bill with federal funding for abortion.

Key: After the name and district, the numbers are in the following order: Winning margin in 2008; McCain-Obama percentages; Year first elected. Districts Obama won are in italics. This list is sort of in the order of most likely to switch to least likely to switch, but it's not too serious.


Michael Arcuri (NY-24) 52% 48-50 06
Note: This district has a Republican lean, and Arcuri, a political moderate, is pushing for a more focused reform. 3/3: Arcuri has now said that he will very likely vote against the Senate bill on the House floor.

Tom Perriello (VA-05) 50% 51-48 08
Note: This race was a squeaker in 08 in a state that's now swung hard away from the Democrats. He now seems to be trying to edge towards voting for a bill even if it does have abortion coverage. But will he want to take that electoral risk?

Mark Schauer (MI-7) 49% 46-52 08
Note: This race is rated a toss-up and could be a tough battle for this freshman. Voting "yes" on health-care reform might make this battle even harder.

Zack Space (OH-18) 60% 53-45 06
Note: Space has been very vocal in his opposition to the Senate version of health-care, and seems to be keeping silent on Obama's proposal. From a Republican-leaning district, Space got into the House in part due to disgust with the corruption of his Republican predecessor.

Steve Driehaus (OH-1) 53% 44-55 06
Note: This district seems to be trending in the direction of the Democrats, but Driehaus is pushing for stronger anti-abortion language.

Baron Hill (IN-9) 50% 50-46 06
Note: This district has swung between R and D Representatives over the past decade. It tilts Republican; this race is rated Lean D. It could be a close one.

Gary Peters (MI-9) 52% 48-52 08
Note: This district swung from a slight R advantage to a strong showing for Obama in 2008. 2010 might tell a different story and hurt Peters' reelection chances. Peters is in many ways a moderate, so it might be to his advantage to take a stand for a more moderate bill.

Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3) 51% 49-49 08
Note: Tight race in 08. Rated Lean D. Dehlkemper's talking up her opposition to abortion.

Earl Pomeroy (ND-At Large) 62% 53-45 92
Note: Obamacare is wildly unpopular in North Dakota, and Pomeroy voted against the bill on the Ways and Means Committee. The pressure on him must be considerable from leadership, and he's buckled before.

Brad Ellsworth (IN-8) 65% 51-47 06
Note: Ellsworth's running for Senate. A tough "yes" on health-care might not help him electorally.

Dennis Cardozo (CA-18) 100% 39-59 02
Note: This district voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and could be a little swing-y. Cardozo has expressed significant reservations about Obama's proposal.

Bart Stupak (MI-1) 65% 48-50 92
Note: Stupak is the author of the anti-abortion language in the House bill. Without that, he may follow through on his threats and abandon support of the measure.

Charlie Wilson (OH-6) 62% 50-48 06
Note: McCain won this district, but it has a long tradition of voting for Democrats in the House. Wilson has expressed limited enthusiasm for Obama's plan.

Anne Kirkpatrick (AZ-1) 55% 54-44 08
Note:This is rated as an R+6 district. R predecessor indicted. Voter alienation may not carry over into 2010.

Vic Snyder (AR-2) 76% 54-44 96
Note: Snyder's retiring; his seat is rated Lean Republican. This retirement may make him feel immune to voter displeasure in Arkansas.

Marion Berry (AR-1) 100% 59-38 96
Note: A staunch Blue Dog, Berry is retiring at the end of his term. He's angry with Pelosi for the position she's put the BD's in. Will he reward her with a "yes" vote this time?

John Spratt (SC-05) 61% 53-46 82
Note: Spratt's a survivor, but his race in 2010 is looking increasingly competitive. Voting all the time with Pelosi and the House leadership might not endear Spratt to his SC constituents.

Dina Titus (NV-3) 47% 43-55 08
Note: Titus won a fairly close election in 2008, and this year could also be a challenge for her. Still, she seems to be stepping away from her earlier objections to aspects of the health-care bill.

Chris Carney (PA-10) 56% 54-45 06
Note: R district, but Carney's a formidable candidate. He might feel he can take the heat from a "yes" vote.

Nick Rahall (WV-3) 67% 56-42 76
Note: Rahall and fellow WV Democrat Mollohan have right-leaning districts but seem personally very popular. Still, could this bill drive voters to abandon him?

Alan Mohollan (WV-2) 99% 57-42 82
Note: See Rahall above. Mohollan's seat may not be quite as safe.

John Salazar (CO-3) 61% 50-48 04
Note: Salazar's district has a strong Republican bias, but he's been able to overcome that in the past. He seems a pretty strong backer of health-care reform.

Battle Lines

The New York Times has a survey of the two blocks of Democrats that Nancy Pelosi must deal with if the latest version of Obamacare is to pass the house: the foes of abortion and fiscal moderates.

In the House, lawmakers like Mr. Kratovil and Mr. Cardoza, and other swing Democrats like them, will come under increasing scrutiny from leadership as a vote draws near. Of the 219 Democrats who initially voted in favor of the House measure, roughly 40 did so in part because it contained the so-called Stupak amendment, intended to discourage insurers from covering abortion.

Some, notably Representative Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat for whom the amendment is named, will almost certainly switch their yes votes to no because the new version being pushed by Mr. Obama would strip out the House bill’s abortion restrictions in favor of Senate language that many of them consider unacceptable.

An additional 39, like Mr. Kratovil, are fiscal conservatives who voted no the first time around. Ms. Pelosi is hoping that she can get some to switch those no votes to yes in favor of Mr. Obama’s less expensive measure.

Those are potentially 80 or so votes in play. If opponents of Obamacare can pick off at least a few more votes, and keep the 39 Democrats who voted against the health-care bill last year, they could stop this bill. Democratic Rep. Jason Altmire (PA) has some words that might encourage Obamacare opponents:

“I don’t know of any no votes at this point that would switch unless the bill is substantially changed, including me,” he said. “And I know of a handful of yes votes who regret it and would relish the opportunity to put a no vote on the board so they could go back home and talk about that.”

Crist's Difficulties

Governor Charlie Crist faces an uphill battle in the struggle for the GOP nomination for the 2010 Senate race in Florida. Former state Speaker of the House Marco Rubio leads Crist 54-36 among Republican voters, according to a Rasmussen poll. The formerly insurgent Rubio has now become the front-runner. Results from another Rasmussen poll probably solidify Rubio's position. Both Republicans lead the likely Democratic nominee, Crist by 18 and Rubio by 20.

These numbers do more than show the strong position of the GOP in this race. They also undercut the claim that Crist is significantly more "electable" than Rubio. These numbers allow conservative-leaning Republicans in Florida to have their cake and eat it, too: they can vote for the red-meat Rubio, who has fashioned himself as being to the right of Crist, while also voting for an electable candidate. If polls showed a significant advantage for Crist in the general, he might have an easier time turning the primary race around. Instead, Crist and Rubio poll as equally electable, perhaps even with a slight edge for Rubio, to Crist's disadvantage.

Obamacare: Grand Entrance

As Marc Ambinder says, Obamacare, with the full approval of the White House, has now taken the stage. Philip Klein has a breakdown of some of the mechanisms of the proposal---and how it will ensure that you cannot, in fact, keep your present health-care coverage.

Perhaps one of the most striking portions of the White House proposal would be the creation of an entity to monitor "excessive" increases in insurance costs. This would be a radical expansion of governmental intervention into the health-care market. James Joyner argues that

This would, in effect, turn private health insurance companies into public utilities. And, while that makes some sense in the case of monopoly providers for vital services where efficiencies won’t allow multiple competitors — multiple power grids and the like are not feasible — it’s truly a bizarre idea in a field, such as health insurance, where dozens of providers exist and the barriers to entry for other competitors are relatively low.

The CBO won't be able to score the legislation for a while. Democrats continue to rumble about reconciliation to pass the bill.

Murray Vulnerable?

Eighteen-year Senate incumbent Patty Murray (D-Washington) might find her name beginning to rise in the list of endangered Senate seats. A Rasmussen poll shows her lagging behind possible Republican challenger Dino Rossi, who lost the 2004 gubernatorial race in Washington by a razor-thin margin and also ran for governor in 2008. A newly released SurveyUSA poll shows Murray with a 43-50 approval rating, dangerous territory for an incumbent. 61% of independents disapprove of her job performance. Will voting to push through Obamacare via the reconciliation process endear her to them?

UPDATE: A lot of commenters have replied with some skepticism about the prospects of Murray losing this seat. This skepticism is not completely unjustified; it's not for nothing that the Cook Political Report calls this race Solid Democrat. However, the political landscape is being shaken up day by day. I'm sure many would have rated the Massachusetts Senate race a Solid Democrat race in November 2009. The reductio ad Scott Brown may increasingly sound hackneyed, but there is an element of truth to it. As another commenter pointed out, candidate recruitment would be crucial. Based on Murray's current polling (and her approval rating has fallen about ten points from a year ago), the right Republican candidate could certainly make a strong go of it. Washington did, after all, have a Republican Senator as recently as 2001. So a Republican victory could be a possibility, one that seems to be growing stronger.

Rasmussen: Toomey Leading

According to a new poll by Rasmussen, Former House member Pat Toomey (R) leads both possible Democratic candidates for Senate in Pennsylvania. He leads Republican-turned-Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter 47-38 and Rep. Joe Sestak, who's challenging Specter for the Democratic nomination, 43-35.

President Obama's numbers are probably pulling down both Democrats' numbers. The poll further reveals that 54% of PA voters disapprove of the job Obama is doing. Toomey leads both Democrats handily in terms of favorability ratings. To put how rough things are for Arlen Specter, who seems to have a strong advantage in the Democratic primary battle: his very unfavorable rating (38%) is almost as high as his combined very favorable and somewhat favorable rating (41%).

Filibuster Politics

A snapshot of the current online "progressive" debate about the filibuster: Paul Krugman conjures the specter of national dissolution in order to show the purported dangers of the filibuster. Ezra Klein, not exactly a friend of the filibuster, offers a few contrary points. Meanwhile, Steve Benen keeps up the "progressive" attack that the inability of Obama and Congressional Democrats to get their way on crucial issues is a sign of a dysfunctional society.

Chris Cillizza has an interesting piece up about the political dynamic of the White House's increasing emphasis upon the filibuster as a campaign issue. He puts forward two theories for this renewed interest:

The first is that the White House believes that the filibuster can be used as symbolic image for why the government (still) isn't working and why it's Republicans fault.

The second theory on the focus on the filibuster is that it is a play to energize what has been, of late, a very listless Democratic base.

I think these are both solid observations. Attacking the filibuster could certainly be an effective tactic for rousing the Democratic base.

Cillizza's first theory also ties neatly into the "progressive" narrative that the United States is somehow "ungovernable" if "progressive" policy positions cannot swiftly become law. There certainly has been increased noise about how the lack of action makes a nation ungovernable (avoiding the argument that sometimes frustrating bad actions is itself a sign of good government), and the filibuster, as an obstacle to "progressive" dreams, could certainly become an image of inaction.

Another possible theory for the White House's increasing vitriol against the filibuster: a desire to get rid of it. There is much institutional deference for the filibuster, as Cillizza acknowledges, but there is a certain "progressive" wing that sincerely would like to get rid of it. Part of the escalating attacks upon the filibuster---how it will cause the dissolution of the nation, the destruction of America, and so forth---may be an attempt by this wing to push to borders of debate in order to begin to make the gutting of the filibuster seem a reasonable course of action.

However, it's not hard to see why many institutional power players in DC like the filibuster in its current incarnation. The filibuster is one of the great facilitators of Beltway kabuki. Senators of various ideological stripes can craft their rhetoric (playing to the base, playing to moderates, or whatever audience they choose) knowing that the filibuster will be there to let them avoid casting black-and-white votes. It can provoke a continued sense of frustration, encouraging donors to give ever more to the party in order to ensure that it can overwhelm the filibuster (see Cillizza's second theory).

So there are all sorts of ways that the filibuster can benefit incumbents while frustrating certain ideologues. And that conflict of expediency and ideology in part explains the various, sometimes contradictory, tendencies of current leftish discussion of the filibuster. Some would like to abolish it. Some would like to talk about abolishing it. Some would like to maintain it. And some will go whichever way the political winds blow.

HI-01: Another Change?

Tim Mak over at FrumForum raises the interesting possibility of a Republican takeover in Hawaii's 1st Congressional District. Republican Charles Djou is running in the May 1 special election to replace Democratic Rep. Neil Abercrombie, who's resigning to run for governor. Mak notes that this district could possibly go the GOP's way:

Unlike Florida-19, which was won by President Obama by over thirty points in 2008, Hawaii-1 looks to be a district where voter dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party could lead to a Republican pick-up. While still quite blue (D+15 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index), Hawaii’s 1^st congressional district has gone to the GOP in the last four governor’s races.

Further, the special election is set up in winner-take-all format, meaning that there are no primaries. With two, maybe three Democrats in the race, Djou thinks that Hawaii-1 could be the inverse of one closely-followed special election in upstate New York: “I think that my special election could essentially be the inverse of the New York-23 election, with the Democrats splitting the vote.”

Djou, a Honolulu City Councilman and a former Minority Floor Leader in the State House, understands that being labeled a Republican can be a liability in his district, so he has run a campaign based on the theme of independence: “I don’t covet the national Republican party’s label or being anointed by them,” he tells FrumForum. “I welcome their support, [but] I’ve built my career… on being an independent voice for my constituents.”

This certainly could be an interesting race.

OR-05: Pickup Opportunity

Oregon House member Scott Bruun is running against US Rep. Kurt Schrader (D) in Oregon's 5th Congressional District. This seat is probably the GOP's best pickup opportunity in Oregon. Rep. Greg Walden represents the 2nd. The other districts have been overwhelmingly Democratic for years and years (though, as Massachusetts showed last month, even deep-Democrat territories might not be electorally safe for Democrats anymore).

Democrats have held the 5th since 1997, but neither Darlene Hooley (serving from 1997-2009) nor Kurt Schrader (from 2009 to the present) cracked 60% on election day. Instead, the Democratic candidates often linger in the mid-low 50s. Even in 2006 and 2008, both strong years for Democrats, Hooley and Schrader both hung around 54%. So this is a district that could swing the Republicans' way.

Bruun seems to be focusing on four issues: spending, health-care, national security, and job creation. It is telling that now many Republicans are using health-care, which was long regarded as a Democratic strength, as a talking point. On health-care, Bruun takes the free-market tack:

I believe that you can't fix healthcare until you implement free market reforms. I also believe that you can't address these free market reforms unless it's done on a bi-partisan basis. There's no doubt that bi-partisanship here is a challenge but it has to be the goal. The European-style nationalization of healthcare that we have been witnessing since the Summer of 2009 is not bi-partisan, and would and will exasperate every problem that now exists in healthcare. Costs will grow, quality and access will shrink, and ultimately only the very rich few will be able to opt out of the system. The rest of us will be stuck, and that's not healthy for America.

Instead, congress should look to create a real market for healthcare. Let individuals and families enjoy the same tax benefits that companies enjoy; so that if we need to, we can shop for health coverage. Let Americans be the customer for once, not just the patient. This would certainly solve the portability problem and begin to reduce costs.

Let Americans buy insurance wherever they want, even across state lines. If it's an Oregon policy, great. But if the best policy for a family is to be found in Florida, or Colorado, so be it. Let us buy it. Open interstate commerce is the responsibility of congress to promote and protect… so do it, congress! Also, let's fix our tort system to reduce the cost of defensive medicine.

Bruun is also reaching out to seniors in his claim that we need to "protect Medicare for seniors by fixing Medicare, not by raiding it to support a fatally-flawed healthcare gambit."

Though Bruun is probably the favorite to win the Republican primary (contributions are coming in at a healthy pace), Fred Thompson (no, not that Fred Thompson) is also running. Thompson is hitting a lot of the same themes---health-care, spending, and defense.

In order to take back the House, Republicans will need to build a majority district-by-district. The last Republican to hold the 5th, Jim Bunn, was elected in 1994. Maybe another Republican wave will carry the 5th in 2010.

CORRECTION: Greg Walden holds the 2nd District seat. Original text fixed.

MA-10: It's a Race

Massachusetts State Representative Jeff Perry has declared his candidacy for Congressman from MA's 10th Congressional District, a seat currently held by Rep. Bill Delahunt (D). The 10th went overwhelmingly for Scott Brown in the recent special election, and Perry may hope that history repeats itself in November to propel him to Washington.

Perry seems to be aiming to capitalize on the reach and enthusiasm-generating power of online media, rolling out Twitter and Facebook feeds as well as a website for his campaign (Perry already has a YouTube channel). He's also hammering on the reform theme. In a statement released to the media, Perry claims that

“They [the people of MA-10] need someone who will stand up for the things they believe in and fight for action on issues like real health care reform without mandates, better job opportunities, checks on illegal immigration, national security, lower taxes and less national debt, and an end to the insider and special-interest dealing that permeates Capitol Hill. People across the South Shore, Cape Cod & the Islands are tired and frustrated with what they see as a system in Washington that’s broken and that’s incapable of progress on issues that matter to them. I want to be someone who changes that.”

The 10th is shaping up to be one of most hotly-contested Congressional races in Massachusetts. Two other Republicans, Ray Kasperowicz and Donald Hussey, have already thrown their hats into the primary ring. Former state treasurer Joe Malone and current state senator Bob Hedlund are also considering running for the seat (Malone seems more strongly inclined than Hedlund at the moment). So we could be looking at five Republicans facing off for the chance to run against an incumbent Democrat---in Massachusetts (cue strained expression of shock). If a high level of opposition interest is a sign of an incumbent's weakness, Bill Delahunt may be in for quite the fight in November. And if a race in New England can generate this much GOP interest, Democrats could find many unanticipated electoral battlefields across the country.

Of the three certain contenders, Perry has a number of strengths: he's been elected to a higher legislative office, has many institutional allies, and enjoys the reputation of being a principled but open-minded conservative. He also is willing to buck his party leadership, voting against the Massachusetts health-reform act of 2006, one of the few Republicans to do so. Malone and Hedlund would both bring their own strengths to the table. Malone probably has a higher name recognition (though this could be a double-edged sword), and Hedlund, a long-time veteran of the state legislature, has a considerable GOP network.

In this race, as in many others across the nation, GOP candidates will need to develop a narrative of reform. There are high levels of public alienation from what's going on in Washington, but there is also lingering public distrust of Republicanism. To some extent, a successful rebranding strategy for the GOP might involve a deescalation of partisan rhetoric. Individual Republican candidates will need to show that they are open-minded and willing to work cooperatively for real reform. At the same time, they can exploit public unhappiness with the Democratic status quo. Hopeful, reform-minded change could bring big wins for the GOP in 2010.

The Filibuster: Ally of Bipartisanship

The first part of an occasional series in defense of the filibuster

So long as our republic continues to be dominated by a two-party system (a two-hundred-year tradition that does not show any signs of deteriorating), each house of Congress will always have a single party in the majority. A majority party---and not a multipartisan coalition---will always be in control. The outstanding question is, then, how far should this control extend. How much power should a majority qua majority have in a given legislative body?

A 51-vote majority in the Senate could, without the filibuster, pass whatever measures it likes, regardless of the minority's wishes (the House approaches this model). There would be relatively little value placed on bipartisan comity due to the diminished necessity of bipartisanship. With the filibuster as it stands, a simple majority must have some cooperation from the minority in order to be able to pass anything. Under the current filibuster rules, a majority party has two options: be lucky enough to have at least 60 votes in your party coalition or be prepared to work across the aisle. Since those 60 votes have proven to be so elusive, most majorities in the past thirty years have been forced to choose some bipartisanship.

So the filibuster as it currently stands often incentivizes bipartisan cooperation. The threat of the filibuster in part requires deals to be made, deals that give members of both parties a hand in crafting legislation. The emphasis on deal-making cuts against the tendencies of factions to turn upon one another with rhetorical violence. Cooperation counteracts partisan disunion.

The filibuster ensures that a temporary, shallow majority is limited in its power. The problem that Democrats in the Senate face vis-a-vis health-care is not the existence of the filibuster but instead the fact that the public perception of the Democrats' reform bill is exceedingly negative. It is this unpopularity that increases the skepticism of moderate Democrats and guarantees that no Republican will want to vote for this measure. If the public were truly clamoring for the current idea of Obamacare, health-care "reform" would have flown through the Senate. Instead, partisan loyalty ran up against public opinion, and public opinion may now be gaining the upper hand.

The Founders, rightly or not, feared the distorting influence of "faction" in politics. The filibuster pounds away at the partisan echochamber that too many members of both parties can lose themselves in. It encourages the moderation of partisan energies and creates an alternative, but often salubrious, incentive for cross-partisan exchanges. Parties can often create their own petty wisdoms, and the need for broader cooperation helps puncture the balloons of bloviation and self-serving justification.

Health-Care Melee

As Democratic legislators engage in white-knuckle negotiations on health-care, a lot of semi-conflicting reports seem to be emerging. Some suggest that the talks are in a "grim" state. But GOP Sen. Jon Kyl now says that he's heard that the Democrats will use reconciliation to pass health-care reform and/or get the House to agree to some deal on Obamacare:

JK: This is kind of breaking news. As you say, we’re just hearing it. We haven’t been formally advised, but we have it on relatively good authority. And this would be what they call the nuclear option. This would be we can’t do it with 60 votes, because now we have a new Senator from Massachusetts, so we’ll do it with 51. Now it’s called the nuclear option, because it really upsets all of the tradition and precedent within the Senate which on a really big bill on the magnitude of health care, would always have strong bipartisan support, and therefore the 60 vote requirement really doesn’t matter. But here, using an arcane part of the budget that ordinarily relates to tax cuts or tax increases, it doesn’t relate to comprehensive bills with a lot of substantive provisions in them, but just changes in the tax code, usually. They’re going to try to rewrite this bill to, where it would only need 51 votes, and still accomplish most of what the bill will accomplish. Now what this will do is let the Blanche Lincolns and Ben Nelsons and Evan Bayhs and other to say oh, I can’t go along with this now. And of course, that’s exactly what their constituents want to hear. But it doesn’t matter, because their votes in effect at this point don’t count. They don’t matter. All it takes is 51 Democrats to vote for it, and it becomes law. It remains to be seen how long the process will take, and whether, and how much of the provisions of the comprehensive health care reform that we’ve been looking at can be scooped up into this legislation. But it now appears the Democrats are going to try that.

If the Democrats do try to push reconciliation, expect Senate Democrats in many battleground states to try to distance themselves from the measure by saying that of course they don't support it now. The 51-vote rule may be a way of giving some of these Democrats cover.

But how many endangered Senate Democrats are there? If Russ Feingold is potentially in trouble, who's really safe? Which Democrats are secure enough in their seats that they will want to vote for this exceedingly controversial measure?

Growing Numbers

The Rothenberg Political Report upgrades the number of House seats the GOP is likely to gain. A variety of analysts are suggesting that the GOP is increasingly likely to win back control of the House and even the Senate.

Irony Alert

With all due respect for Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC), I think he's mis-stating the conditions of the health-care debate for the Senate:

"[Senators] tend to see themselves as a House of Lords and they don't seem to understand that those of us that go out there every two years stay in touch with the American people," he said in an interview with Fox News Radio. "We tend to respond to them a little better."

I think the problem that the Democrats' version of health-care is running into is the fact that members of the Senate (and the House) are in touch with people. The current health-care proposal is very unpopular, and that unpopularity is making senators/representatives very leery about voting for it. It is not senators' obliviousness to public opinion but their attention to it that makes them unsure about health-care.

A bigger dividing line between the Senate and the House is that senators have to appeal to a whole state; they can't sit safe within the gerrymandered confines of an ultra-right/left district. Even Massachusetts isn't safe for statewide Democrats any more. With more and more state sliding in the Republican direction, expect Democratic senators to get more and more skittish. With poll numbers showing him losing to a variety of Republican challengers, is Evan Bayh (IN) likely to vote again for a monopartisan version of Obamacare?

Filibuster Debating

There's a lot of interesting discussion going on about the filibuster in the blogosphere right now. David Frum has some interesting points here, here, and here. One of Josh Marshall's correspondents (a journalist with decades of experience covering the Hill) over at TPM makes this interesting observation:

I really believe that the change in the Senate rules in 1975 which made cloture 60 votes instead of 67 has made the Senate more partisan.

Why? Because it is much easier to get to 60 without serious compromise than to get to 67. Therefore, Democrats can pick off one or two GOP'ers right now and get cloture.

Remember, lots of stuff went through the Senate with a 67-vote cloture rule between 1919 and 1975. Medicare, Civil Rights in the 60's and all kinds of stuff before that.
Were there a lot of bills blocked? Absolutely.

Reverse Wave

The political wave that brought Democrat Ted Strickland to the Ohio governor's office in 2006 may be reversing direction. A new poll has former GOP Congressman John Kasich leading Strickland 51-45. The economy is the biggest issue in Ohio voters' minds.

Meanwhile, out in Illinois, the various candidates for Barack Obama's old Senate seat, Republican and Democrat, are busy trying to out-outsider each other. The Democratic primary is February 2; the winner of that primary will face GOP Rep. Mark Kirk in the general. Kirk is trying to make the most of the state's "change" sentiment. He's also playing up the "corruption" narrative:

Sen.-elect Brown, who snagged Sen. Ted Kennedy's old seat in an upset last week against Democrat Martha Coakley, showed the GOP how to run “a quiet, disciplined campaign rigorously focusing on economic issues,” Kirk told The Hill. “Many of the same concerns, especially about the corruption inside the healthcare bill, are shared by the people of Illinois. Corruption is probably an even bigger issue in Illinois because of the arrest of Governor [Rod] Blagojevich and his trial coming up this summer.”

Upgrading the Races

Nate Silver has a thorough analysis of the upcoming 2010 Senate races. Many Republicans' chances have improved considerably.

Margin for Change

Michael Barone (with a generous nod to yours truly---though I do want to emphasize that I am only borrowing Jeffmd's graph) digs into the Massachusetts election results and finds an interesting fact: Coakley won Congressional Districts that voted 64+% for Obama; Brown carried the rest. Applying this metric to other states, Barone finds that only 104 districts in the country fall in that category. A Republican holds only one of those seats.

So will November 2010 see the election of 331 Republicans to the House? Probably not. That number is achievable (Democrats surpassed it in 1936), but highly unlikely.

But these figures do indicate that the Republican party still has plenty of room to grow, places where it can gain without a radically transformative political dynamic. It also makes the notion of recapturing the House for the GOP in 2010 much more believable.

This data provides an interesting frame to this Politico piece talking about some of the challenges Republicans still face. They certainly cast a revealing light on the following paragraph:

The most important ones: 40, the net seats to win the House, and 10, the net seats to win the Senate, are very difficult — perhaps impossible in the case of the Senate — to achieve. Republicans have picked up 40 or more House seats only seven times since 1912, when the chamber grew to 435 seats. They have picked up 10 or more Senate seats only four times in that period. They have done both three times in the past century.

It seems certain they will pick up some seats, perhaps as many as two dozen or more in the House. That would be in line with the historical average pickup for the opposition party in a president’s first term.

Two of the times that Republicans gained that much in the House and the Senate in the same election were 1946 and 1980. They nearly reached that margin in 1994 (netting only 8 Senate seats). 1994 might be the most apposite comparison, but all 3 elections were "change" elections, with a public dissatisfied with a Democratic status quo.

So the numbers are doable, but this article focuses on a true difficulty for Republicans:

But Republicans still will fight against another set of numbers: the large number of voters who simply don’t like the brand the GOP is selling. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found only 30 percent of those surveyed had a favorable view of Republicans. That is 8 percentage points lower than the favorability rating for Democrats. And 22 points lower than Obama’s.

“The American people are against their agenda,” Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) said of the Democrats. But Westmoreland said the Republicans are “having a hard time” getting their agenda out, too. “We have got to do a better job getting that out.”

Even Republicans aren’t thrilled with Republicans. A CBS News poll showed only 55 percent of Republicans hold a favorable view of their congressional delegation.

And voters also still don’t trust Republicans with big decisions. A recent Washington Post poll found 24 percent trusted congressional Republicans to make the right decisions for the country — 8 points fewer than Democrats and 23 points fewer than Obama.

“Scott Brown didn’t even really run as a Republican,” Dowd notes. “He ran as an outsider.”

The Republican party has not yet proven to the voters that it can be fully trusted with power. The brand has been considerably tainted by the economic/political turmoil over the past few years. And the American people don't seem to want the resurrection of the power structure of 2006.

One of the best ways for the GOP to cope with this---and one that Scott Brown realized---is through running decentralized campaigns. The national GOP should let a thousand flowers bloom in all the races across the country. Individual candidates will have to find individual messages that work. One of the electoral benefits of being out of power is that the GOP does not need to defend a comprehensive set of policy choices: there is considerably less incentive for a party line. Instead, Congressional candidates can offer a variety of responses to present problems. The experimental flavor that the GOP so needs right now is aided by political circumstances.

The GOP should appear open to change and to appear the party of responsible change. They can also benefit from appearing as the party that will fight against irresponsible change.

Americans in 2008 voted for a reform and not a revolution. They may now fear that they have gotten the latter, or some bizarre hybrid of elite continuity and a radical expansion of government power. If Republicans can appear a voice for the former (that is, for reform), they could have much to gain.

PA Senate: Specter in Trouble

In Pennsylvania, former Republican Senator Arlen Specter has two hard races to fight: the primary and the Democratic primary and the general election. While Specter has a comfortable lead in the primary, the general is another story, according to Rasmussen.

Republican Pat Toomey now leads incumbent Senator Arlen Specter 49% to 40% in Pennsylvania’s race for the U.S. Senate. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Pennsylvania voters also finds Toomey with a 43% to 35% lead over Democratic challenger Joe Sestak.

Next Stop: the House?

Though some of Brown's supporters are already champing at the "Kerry, You're Next" bit, Massachusetts Republican politicos have a challenge that is much closer: the House elections in November. Scott Brown's margin of victory put many towns across the state in the Republican column, and it looks like many Congressional Districts voted for the Republican. Jeffmd did some number-crunching over at the Swing State Project, and here's what he got (a few cities straddling a couple districts are not figured into the totals, but this absence should not affect the districts where Brown was the certain winner):

CD	Coakley	Brown	Coakley%	Brown%
1	107,665	103,561	50.97%	49.03%
2	89,493	121,799	42.36%	57.64%
3	82,588	121,627	40.44%	59.56%
4	108,079	110,323	49.49%	50.51%
5	91,585	121,594	42.96%	57.04%
6	104,787	144,168	42.09%	57.91%
7	118,283	101,739	53.76%	46.24%
8	46,795	11,884	79.75%	20.25%
9	76,164	101,140	42.96%	57.04%
10	109,489	163,812	40.06%	59.94%
3, 4	10,341	7,489	58.00%	42.00%
5, 7	3,597	2,915	55.24%	44.76%
8, 9	105,289	46,468	69.38%	30.62%
9, 10	1,254	3,067	29.02%	70.98%

Coakley Wins: 1st, 7th, 8th
Uncertain, but likely Brown wins: 4th, 9th
Brown Wins: 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 10th

This analysis gives Republicans at least 5 districts where Brown was the clear winner. The lucky Democrats are Richard Neal (2nd), Jim McGovern (3rd), Niki Tsongas (5th), John Tierney (6th), and Bill Delahunt (10th). Up until 1997, the 3rd and the 6th districts were represented by Republicans, so those might be the most likely to flip, but Brown won all of these districts with support in the high 50's, topping out at nearly 60% in the 10th District.

The fact that this is a special election should not, as it might in other years, give much comfort to Democratic incumbents. 54% of registered voters turned out for this election. Turnout in Massachusetts in 2006 was 56%, so the numbers for this election are not too much off from the preceding off-year Congressional elections; this election is a fairly close approximation (probably) of what the midterm electorate could look like in Massachusetts.

Don't be surprised if you see some of these Democrats swinging towards the middle over the next ten months. And (will wonders never cease!) here comes Bill Delahunt of the 10th saying that Democrats should "carve up" the health-care bill and pass its most popular portions! He even hopes for a "bipartisan" bill!

Don't also be surprised if the Massachusetts GOP and the RNC start quietly polling to see which incumbents could be vulnerable and trying to recruit worthy Republican challengers for the races in the fall.

12 Lessons from January 19, 2010

Scott Brown's victory over Martha Coakley has more than a few lessons for political watchers. Here are a few possible implications:

Democrats have inherited the mantle of responsibility. Blaming Bush for the failures of today has reached substantially diminished returns. Pushing massively unpopular bills on a monopartisan basis just makes that mantle weigh even heavier.

The Democratic brand is damaged. Skepticism about the reach of "progressive" power has been bubbling and seems to be climbing into outright alienation. The national zeitgeist made it possible for Coakley to become a radioactive candidate.

Health-care is an explosive electoral issue. It's somewhat obvious, but it should still be emphasized that health-care was a game-changing issue for the election, one not in the Democrats' favor. This issue is sure to pop up in races across the country.

Party unity is a questionable commodity for Democrats. Look for more Democrats who are interested in salvaging their seats to try to take a more independent tack.

Personalities matter. The growing public discontentment with national Democrats was not sufficient for a Coakley loss. A charming, independent-seeming, fire-in-the-belly candidate could have pulled out a win. Unfortunately for Democrats, this candidate was Brown. Gaffes dogged Coakley's steps during the race and a strategic shortsightedness hurt her campaign as well.

GOP recruiting is going to be easier. If a Republican can win in Massachusetts (note the shocked accent), the sky's the limit!

The GOP is on the road to keeping its position as a national party. It's a long time since about a year ago when many were crowing that the GOP was doomed to being a Southern regional party.

The online right has won a scalp. Online interest and activism was crucial in catapaulting Brown into a contending position. Brown seems to have recognized early on the benefits of social networking sites and to have made the most of them.

Elite distrust is rising. The public seems increasing skeptical of managerial policies of the current governmental elite. Brown was able to leverage this distrust into an electoral win. Look for Republicans and Democrats to try to replicate this strategy later in the year.

A tsunami could be coming in November. If this is a representative electoral appetizer for the Congressional races later in the year, 2010 could be a miserable year for many Democrats.

The public is ready to look beyond tired old antagonisms for new solutions. Coakley tried to resurrect the political oppositions of 2006/2008 in order to bolster her campaign. This attempt failed. Brown ran as an independent-minded, forward-looking figure. The public may be sensing the exhaustion of the political narratives that dominated so much of the first decade of the 2000's. The time is still ripe for "change" candidates.

The fight might just be getting started. It seems as though the Obama administration, rather than moderating its position in the face of this and other losses, may be initially inclined to act even more aggressively and assertively from the left. Time will tell if this is mere posturing---and if Democrats in Congress will want to go along with this approach.

Victory

The AP is calling the MA race for Scott Brown. Coakley has conceded to Brown.

Poll Results Incoming

In the bellwether town of Gardner, Scott Brown won 57% of the vote. In 2006, Ted Kennedy's victory margin statewide matched his margin in Gardner. Could Brown win with numbers that big?

Jim Geraghty has more town-by-town results.

The Perfect Storm

Jim Geraghty has a nice narrative of the Brown campaign up at National Review.

Election Day Stumping

(A week old but still relevant)

An imaginary speech delivered by a Republican candidate for Senate in Massachusetts:

Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate the invitation to speak to you at this time and at this place. The people of Massachusetts have been very supportive of my candidacy. As I go from house to house, neighborhood to neighborhood, from town to town, and from city to city, I am reminded of the diversity of our Commonwealth, but also of its universal hospitality.

While my opponent was taking a vacation, I was traveling across this state, meeting with the voters. Enough is enough. I can see it in their eyes. I hear it on their lips. Enough is enough. Enough of the corruption. Enough of the incompetence. Enough of the lies. Enough of the thuggery. Enough of the profligacy. Enough of the resentment. Enough of the fear.

Read more here.

Mixed Signals

Nate Silver gives Scott Brown a 74% chance of winning. InsiderAdvantage puts him ahead by 9. A Coakley internal supposedly shows her leading by 1. Brown has a double-digit lead in three bellwether districts in MA. Tomorrow, we'll see who was closest.

Deconstruction Beginning?

Vice-President Joe Biden makes a few noises about the supposed dangers of the filibuster (which conveniently come once Democrats hold power):

"As long as I have served ... I've never seen, as my uncle once said, the Constitution stood on its head as they've done. This is the first time every single solitary decisions has required 60 senators," he said at a Florida fundraiser, according to the pool report. “No democracy has survived needing a super majority."

Is the White House going to ratchet up its rhetoric against some of the procedural checks on its power?

Nelson's Price

Despite or perhaps because of his health-care negotiations for the state of Nebraska, Democratic Senator Ben Nelson seems to have taken a significant hit in his approval rating, which now stands at 42% (with 48% disapproving). Being the 60th vote in favor of Obamacare does have its price in Nebraska, apparently.

No Cause for Complacency

The Massachusetts special Senate election seems to have entered the trench warfare stage of a campaign. Coakley's barrage of negative attacks and increased Democratic interest seem to have slowed Brown's meteoric rise in the polls. According to most polls, the negatives for both candidates are going up as the race enters its final stages. There are three possible outcomes. One is that this race ends up in a neck-and-neck grudge match, as partisans from each side grind away at each other without a huge swing in the polls, giving us a close result for one side or the other. Another is that Scott Brown's Republican, independent, and Democratic coalition sweeps the field, far outperforming most polling numbers and winning a decisive victory. The third outcome---and probably the least likely---is the Democratic machine in Massachusetts, buoyed by a visit by Obama, is able to pull things together for a solid victory for Coakley.

The polls for these final hours tell a mixed story. Some of Coakley's internals supposedly have her up by two points (this is probably a calculated leak). According to Bill Kristol, Brown's numbers have him gaining over the weekend and with a clear lead no matter what turnout model is used. If Brown's momentum has slowed, has it reversed, too? Two master internet pollsters have two different results. Charles Franklin at Pollster.com argues for a wide trend increasingly favoring Brown. Nate Silver, however, sketches an ubertrendline showing a reversal of the momentum for this race, with Brown peaking around 1/15 and the race slowly swinging back in Coakley's direction.

Whatever the details of the polls, this is definitely time for Brown's allies to be hopeful, charged up, and excited. It is not time for them to be complacent. In the final 30+ hours of the campaign, the race could still swing in a lot of ways. The Coakley gaffe machine keeps going on and on and on. But Team Brown can't just rely on its opponents verbal infelicities.

Turnout and enthusiasm can make a loss a victory or a narrow victory a crushing triumph. Now is not the time to falter or hold back or relax. Phonebanking and other types of volunteering, donating money, talking to your neighbors, going out and actually voting---there's plenty that individuals can do to support Brown. Brown's allies need to keep pushing the enough-is-enough sense of change and argue on behalf of balance on Capitol Hill. Brown has been successful at casting this race not as Republican vs. Democrat but as moderation vs. extremism, hope vs. demonization, independence vs. hackery. Those themes have carried him far to this point; they may just carry him (and, later in the year, others) to Washington, DC to work for real, positive reform.