How would reconciliation affect the 2010 Mid-Terms?

[BushKenya]

The Democrats are threatening to use the reconciliation process, which only requires 51 votes, to ram their health care bills through Congress, basically sticking their tongue out at their Republican colleagues.

My question is how would that affect the mid-terms which are only 13 1/2 months away?  Keep in mind that its already shaping up to be a better year for the Republicans with Obama's slipping approval ratings and the history of the President's party losing seats at the mid-terms.  I know the Bush Administration defied history, but that was also just 13 1/2 months after 9/11/2001 so it doesn't really count.  Also consider that the war in Afghanistan is starting to lose support entering its 9th year, as more and more Americans are conceding Afghanistan as another Vietnam.

[Dan the Roman]

No one would care about procedure. The opponents would get much angrier and this might raise their turnout, but they are already pissed off. Its main purpose would be to rally the Democratic base. Frankly, reconciliation or abolishing the filibuster is so obvious I am shocked Obama is not pushing it. This idea that you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate is nothing less than absurd, and if the GOP had a majority I have no doubt they would not tolerate it for a second.

[Mr.Phips]

It would probably give Democrats a boost in turnout and enthusiasm. 

[Former Moderate]

Republican voters actually responded to the rallying cry of "judges" and "obstructionism" back in 2002.  People don't need to understand what the procedure is.  All they need to know is that it's procedure that's being used to stop what they want.

[Meeker]

No one would care. Well some Republicans would care. But they were already going to vote.

[Badger]

It would not switch a dozen votes nationwide against Democrats. The most memorable fact being something got passed would only help. If there's time to implement it before the midterm, most people discovering their taxes didn't go up, their choice of doctor wasn't taken away, and the world didn't otherwise end will likewise only help.

[BushKenya]

How about among independents, a key group that Obama is struggling to hold onto.  This is the group that looks for bi-partisanship more than Republicans or Democrats.  If the Democrats spit in the face of Republicans and thumb their nose at bi-partisanship and "go it alone", to borrow a phrase from the Bush years, will that destroy Obama's image of trying to reach across the aisle that he campaigned on.  Will that hurt the Democrats or affect the make-up of the Congress in anyway on November 2, 2010?

[Deldem]

It won't matter in November 2010- all that the general public will remember is that a bill was passed.

[Lief]

It won't matter in November 2010- all that the general public will remember is that a bill was passed.

^^^^

Explain to people that the Democrats passed a bill outlawing pre-existing condition discrimination, capping yearly out of pocket expenses, increasing choice, enacting a public option, and giving working class Americans subsidies, and they won't care that the Democrats used some parliamentary tactic that they don't understand.

[Padfoot]

How about among independents, a key group that Obama is struggling to hold onto.  This is the group that looks for bi-partisanship more than Republicans or Democrats.  If the Democrats spit in the face of Republicans and thumb their nose at bi-partisanship and "go it alone", to borrow a phrase from the Bush years, will that destroy Obama's image of trying to reach across the aisle that he campaigned on.  Will that hurt the Democrats or affect the make-up of the Congress in anyway on November 2, 2010?

I think voters will have long enough memories to recall that most Republicans balked at passing ANY sort of health care reform and, with a few exceptions, did not reciprocate good faith efforts at bipartisanship.  Yes, Democrats will probably end up "going alone" but voters will realize it was because of Republican stubbornness, not Democratic partisanship.

[SamInTheSouth]

Wow.  I can't believe how much denial I am reading here.  You guys sound as clueless as the Republicans did leading up to 2006.

[Gravis Marketing]

Wow.  I can't believe how much denial I am reading here.  You guys sound as clueless as the Republicans did leading up to 2006.

How much certainty do you advise we put on polls 14 months before an election before we're not in "denial"?

I'm reading lots of people expressing concern about the size of Dem losses, but making reasoned arguments as to how things will play out. I understand if you guys are looking for hope; I've been there too. I think it's too much to expect others to feel bad for not sharing certainty that your hopes are the predetermined path for the future.

[bullmoose88]

Wow.  I can't believe how much denial I am reading here.  You guys sound as clueless as the Republicans did leading up to 2006.

How much certainty do you advise we put on polls 14 months before an election before we're not in "denial"?

I'm reading lots of people expressing concern about the size of Dem losses, but making reasoned arguments as to how things will play out. I understand if you guys are looking for hope; I've been there too. I think it's too much to expect others to feel bad for not sharing certainty that your hopes are the predetermined path for the future.

The real problem is, the Democrats have to give a rather long winded explaination (because its a complex situation) as to why they had to use reconciliation...the Republicans need only launch attacks, probably successful ones, based on a very simple message (however misleading)...that the Democrats rammed government health care down the country's throat.

Lief makes good points as to why the Democrats did it, but deep down you guys probably will admit that like 8 or 9 times out of 10, the dumb/simple message trumps the nuanced/complex/long winded truthful message.

[Dan the Roman]

Wow.  I can't believe how much denial I am reading here.  You guys sound as clueless as the Republicans did leading up to 2006.

How much certainty do you advise we put on polls 14 months before an election before we're not in "denial"?

I'm reading lots of people expressing concern about the size of Dem losses, but making reasoned arguments as to how things will play out. I understand if you guys are looking for hope; I've been there too. I think it's too much to expect others to feel bad for not sharing certainty that your hopes are the predetermined path for the future.

The real problem is, the Democrats have to give a rather long winded explaination (because its a complex situation) as to why they had to use reconciliation...the Republicans need only launch attacks, probably successful ones, based on a very simple message (however misleading)...that the Democrats rammed government health care down the country's throat.

Lief makes good points as to why the Democrats did it, but deep down you guys probably will admit that like 8 or 9 times out of 10, the dumb/simple message trumps the nuanced/complex/long winded truthful message.

I never denied anywhere on this thread that reconciliation would hurt, and that Democrats would lose the media war over it. But Democrats have to chose their poison. They can chose to fail on healthcare which would motivate conservatives and depress democratic turnout, or they can push it through which would piss off conservatives but motivate democrats. The latter is a much better option, even if it pisses off some independents.

I also think that because most of us on here care about policy we assume other people do as well. Most independents care about effectiveness, and therefore failing to pass healthcare is worse than passing a bill in a partisan manner.

Furthermore, i don't buy this "fictional" constituency for bipartisanship. It exists, but rarely extends beyond David Broder's dinner guests. Most voters do not want bipartisanship. Especially after the last few years.

[Vepres]

How about among independents, a key group that Obama is struggling to hold onto.  This is the group that looks for bi-partisanship more than Republicans or Democrats.  If the Democrats spit in the face of Republicans and thumb their nose at bi-partisanship and "go it alone", to borrow a phrase from the Bush years, will that destroy Obama's image of trying to reach across the aisle that he campaigned on.  Will that hurt the Democrats or affect the make-up of the Congress in anyway on November 2, 2010?

I think voters will have long enough memories to recall that most Republicans balked at passing ANY sort of health care reform and, with a few exceptions, did not reciprocate good faith efforts at bipartisanship.  Yes, Democrats will probably end up "going alone" but voters will realize it was because of Republican stubbornness, not Democratic partisanship.

Hmmmm... 60 votes in the Senate, 256 in the house... Yep, it's definitely Republican's fault if nothing passes

[Vepres]

BTW, I bet all you Democrats who support reconciliation for health care denounced the Republican congress for using it with the patriot act (which I oppose FTR).

[Padfoot]

How about among independents, a key group that Obama is struggling to hold onto.  This is the group that looks for bi-partisanship more than Republicans or Democrats.  If the Democrats spit in the face of Republicans and thumb their nose at bi-partisanship and "go it alone", to borrow a phrase from the Bush years, will that destroy Obama's image of trying to reach across the aisle that he campaigned on.  Will that hurt the Democrats or affect the make-up of the Congress in anyway on November 2, 2010?

I think voters will have long enough memories to recall that most Republicans balked at passing ANY sort of health care reform and, with a few exceptions, did not reciprocate good faith efforts at bipartisanship.  Yes, Democrats will probably end up "going alone" but voters will realize it was because of Republican stubbornness, not Democratic partisanship.

Hmmmm... 60 votes in the Senate, 256 in the house... Yep, it's definitely Republican's fault if nothing passes

Ummm... you should read more carefully.  It wasn't a question of whether it passes because it will pass.  There is no doubt in my mind that Democrats are going to pass some form of health care reform.  I never said anything about blaming Republicans for killing health care reform.

The question is how will it pass and what affect will that have on the midterms.  Will Republicans kick and scream and force the Democrats to use procedures like reconciliation in the hope of painting the Democrats as big government villains in 2010?  Or will moderate Republican voices step up resulting in at least some degree of bipartisanship perhaps giving Democrats a step up in 2010 and/or risking their own reelection?

[Gravis Marketing]

BTW, I bet all you Democrats who support reconciliation for health care denounced the Republican congress for using it with the patriot act (which I oppose FTR).

No one in this country except for Robert Byrd and Matthew Yglesias is consistent on the 60 vs. 51 vote thing. No one.

[Badger]

Wow.  I can't believe how much denial I am reading here.  You guys sound as clueless as the Republicans did leading up to 2006.

How much certainty do you advise we put on polls 14 months before an election before we're not in "denial"?

I'm reading lots of people expressing concern about the size of Dem losses, but making reasoned arguments as to how things will play out. I understand if you guys are looking for hope; I've been there too. I think it's too much to expect others to feel bad for not sharing certainty that your hopes are the predetermined path for the future.

The real problem is, the Democrats have to give a rather long winded explaination (because its a complex situation) as to why they had to use reconciliation...the Republicans need only launch attacks, probably successful ones, based on a very simple message (however misleading)...that the Democrats rammed government health care down the country's throat.

Lief makes good points as to why the Democrats did it, but deep down you guys probably will admit that like 8 or 9 times out of 10, the dumb/simple message trumps the nuanced/complex/long winded truthful message.

And that media war wouldn't last a month outside the parties bases. Who truly believes anyone would change their vote next November over an issue of frikkin Senate parlimentary procedure no matter how it's pitched? The only people still worked up over this a few weeks after it happens were going to vote straight ticket Republican anyway. The only way the "rammed it down our throats" argument has any legs is if the reforms enacted are broadly considered a failure. And they won't--most people won't be effected at all, which makes it pretty hard to make ordinary voters give a damn about how something got passed in Washington.

Bottom Line: Voters will hold more against a do-nothing president and congress than one that plays a bit of political hardball.