Could the failure of healthcare reform actually HELP Democrats in 2010?

[Mr.Phips]

With the near certain death of healthcare reform, I am thinking that it is maybe a blessing in disguise for Democrats.  Independents didnt want it and they are going to be the key group that decides the 2010 election.  If Democrats dont pass reform, you would think that independents will reward Democrats for listening to them and not passing reform. 

I actually think this could work out very well for Democrats.  The party will likely be seen as listening to the will of the American people. 

[You kip if you want to...]

With the near certain death of healthcare reform, I am thinking that it is maybe a blessing in disguise for Democrats.  Independents didnt want it and they are going to be the key group that decides the 2010 election.  If Democrats dont pass reform, you would think that independents will reward Democrats for listening to them and not passing reform. 

I actually think this could work out very well for Democrats.  The party will likely be seen as listening to the will of the American people. 

Probably not, HCR was a very "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

It makes it easier for Republicans to start a "They has 60% of the seats in both houses and they've done nothing" style narrative. Although, if unemployment starts to fall, it may save a few seats which would otherwise turn red (or blue in Atlas' case).

[Mr.Phips]

With the near certain death of healthcare reform, I am thinking that it is maybe a blessing in disguise for Democrats.  Independents didnt want it and they are going to be the key group that decides the 2010 election.  If Democrats dont pass reform, you would think that independents will reward Democrats for listening to them and not passing reform. 

I actually think this could work out very well for Democrats.  The party will likely be seen as listening to the will of the American people. 

Probably not, HCR was a very "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

It makes it easier for Republicans to start a "They has 60% of the seats in both houses and they've done nothing" style narrative. Although, if unemployment starts to fall, it may save a few seats which would otherwise turn red (or blue in Atlas' case).

Isnt "doing nothing" what the people want?

[You kip if you want to...]

With the near certain death of healthcare reform, I am thinking that it is maybe a blessing in disguise for Democrats.  Independents didnt want it and they are going to be the key group that decides the 2010 election.  If Democrats dont pass reform, you would think that independents will reward Democrats for listening to them and not passing reform. 

I actually think this could work out very well for Democrats.  The party will likely be seen as listening to the will of the American people. 

Probably not, HCR was a very "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

It makes it easier for Republicans to start a "They has 60% of the seats in both houses and they've done nothing" style narrative. Although, if unemployment starts to fall, it may save a few seats which would otherwise turn red (or blue in Atlas' case).

Isnt "doing nothing" what the people want?

I suppose. But really, when the Dems have majorities as large as they, they're easily portrayed as weak. For some reason, I just can't see people going "Oh, this has been going on since May... they failed at it... good. I'll vote for them guys again."

[Mr.Phips]

With the near certain death of healthcare reform, I am thinking that it is maybe a blessing in disguise for Democrats.  Independents didnt want it and they are going to be the key group that decides the 2010 election.  If Democrats dont pass reform, you would think that independents will reward Democrats for listening to them and not passing reform. 

I actually think this could work out very well for Democrats.  The party will likely be seen as listening to the will of the American people. 

Probably not, HCR was a very "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

It makes it easier for Republicans to start a "They has 60% of the seats in both houses and they've done nothing" style narrative. Although, if unemployment starts to fall, it may save a few seats which would otherwise turn red (or blue in Atlas' case).

Isnt "doing nothing" what the people want?

I suppose. But really, when the Dems have majorities as large as they, they're easily portrayed as weak. For some reason, I just can't see people going "Oh, this has been going on since May... they failed at it... good. I'll vote for them guys again."

There is a good chance that this whole failure will be long forgotten by November. 

[Beet]

No. It will destroy us.

Equally important, it will be a body blow to the very notion of effective governance, which I think is underappreciated right now. More people will begin to look towards the Chinese system of authoritarian government, or at least more centralized parliamentary systems, as not necessarily inferior to American government in terms of functioning ability. This is a long term trend.

[Mr.Phips]

No. It will destroy us.

Equally important, it will be a body blow to the very notion of effective governance, which I think is underappreciated right now. More people will begin to look towards the Chinese system of authoritarian government, or at least more centralized parliamentary systems, as not necessarily inferior to American government in terms of functioning ability. This is a long term trend.

Maybe, but that didnt happen when healthcare reform failed in 1994 either. 

[Dan the Roman]

No. It will destroy us.

Equally important, it will be a body blow to the very notion of effective governance, which I think is underappreciated right now. More people will begin to look towards the Chinese system of authoritarian government, or at least more centralized parliamentary systems, as not necessarily inferior to American government in terms of functioning ability. This is a long term trend.

Maybe, but that didnt happen when healthcare reform failed in 1994 either. 

The problem now is the discontent being much greater. The Right is already giving up on democracy. The failure of Healthcare may well have the left do so as well.

[Padfoot]

If healthcare fails to pass (which it won't) the already depressed base will be even more depressed and Democrats will lose seats they have no business losing.  They're going to be punished at the polls for tackling this issue but if they don't accomplish anything then the losses will be even worse.  Republicans know this which is why their party line has been to obstruct everything and anything the Democrats try to do.

[Lief 🗽]

No. Healthcare doesn't pass and we lose Congress.

[nkpatel1279]

Lets lock Sanders-VT and Lieberman-CT in the same room until both sides come to an agreement.

[Хahar 🤔]

№

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1994 sure worked out real well for the Democrats.

[Beet]

No. It will destroy us.

Equally important, it will be a body blow to the very notion of effective governance, which I think is underappreciated right now. More people will begin to look towards the Chinese system of authoritarian government, or at least more centralized parliamentary systems, as not necessarily inferior to American government in terms of functioning ability. This is a long term trend.

Maybe, but that didnt happen when healthcare reform failed in 1994 either. 

I am not talking about the US (although there are always kooks), I am talking about how our system and values are perceived internationally. In 1994 were coming off a decade when democratic systems triumphed.

Today were are coming off a decade where democratic systems have been in retreat more often than advance.
Where elections in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan solved nothing.
Where Russia turned itself around by embracing the semi-authoritarianism of Putin.
Where the citadel of democracy, the US, had a disputed election the likes of which in 1994 would have been consigned to the Third World.
Where a record numbers of Americans are convinced Congress is in the hands of lobbyists and banksters.
And today, all of the problems were face-- health care, debt, polarization-- are worse, far worse, than in 1994.
For people asking what system of government can effectively address problems, the US over the past 10 years has not been a shining beacon. With this background, the failure to pass a health care bill-- any health care bill, would begin to have implications that it did not in 1994.

[Vepres]

Polls show that, while they lose votes either way, failing to pass reform would be far more damaging.

[Beet]

I agree with you on financial reform, but if the Democrats fail to pass a bill, will they successfully be able to pin it on Republican obstructionism of the public option, or will the pundits conclude that it's another example of their ineffectiveness despite having 60 seats? The mandate may be bad politics, but it is good policy. And the political downside may be limited as well- I predict that scare stories like people being sent to prison will never materialize. It only makes the people making such claims look hysterical.

What are the Democrats supposed to argue-- give us 62 seats and you'll have an (extremely neutered) public option? How is it likely that the Democrats will emerge out of the 2010 elections with 62 or more seats? And with the extremely polarized environment of today, is governance by supermajority even a viable way to run a democratic government?

This is bigger than just the health care debate. The parties have to learn to work together again and start to reverse the trend of polarization. Polarization is poison to the US. It's slowly destroying us, destroying the political process. Congress has to show that it can function-- and if that means Democrats reaching across the aisle to someone like Snowe, I say go for it. We were headed towards awareness of polarization's problems in the 2000s, but the economic downturn briefly magnified it.

[CJK]

The Democrats are screwed no matter what happens. If they pass the unpopular bill then they'll get blamed for it. If they don't pass the bill, then people will be angry that they wasted an entire year while the economy burned.

[Ogre Mage]

If the Democrats fail to pass health care, the losses will be massive, probably returning control of Congress to the GOP.  Too much time, energy and media attention has been invested in this now.  A failure will not be forgotten.  It will have catastrophic PR consequences.

If health care passes, the Dems will lose the Republican and Republican-leaning districts they had no business winning in 2006 and 2008.  Those alone are nowhere close enough to endanger their majority.  As for the swing districts, they will remain competitive there and health care will be just one of many factors in play.

[Sam Spade]

FYI, read through a decent amount of the "financial reform" bill today.

Amusingly, the end result of the bill (as a whole) is to reduce transparency in many aspects of financial decision-making, both on the government end and on the financial institutions end.

They're trying to hoodwink us like the last administration did.  Don't fall for it.

[President Mitt]

No, the Democratic Party will get their asses handed to them if HCR fails. Obama is willing to sign any bill with the words HEALTHCARE on it to prevent that. Perhaps in his second term we can attempt some real reform.

[muon2]

I agree with you on financial reform, but if the Democrats fail to pass a bill, will they successfully be able to pin it on Republican obstructionism of the public option, or will the pundits conclude that it's another example of their ineffectiveness despite having 60 seats? The mandate may be bad politics, but it is good policy. And the political downside may be limited as well- I predict that scare stories like people being sent to prison will never materialize. It only makes the people making such claims look hysterical.

What are the Democrats supposed to argue-- give us 62 seats and you'll have an (extremely neutered) public option? How is it likely that the Democrats will emerge out of the 2010 elections with 62 or more seats? And with the extremely polarized environment of today, is governance by supermajority even a viable way to run a democratic government?

This is bigger than just the health care debate. The parties have to learn to work together again and start to reverse the trend of polarization. Polarization is poison to the US. It's slowly destroying us, destroying the political process. Congress has to show that it can function-- and if that means Democrats reaching across the aisle to someone like Snowe, I say go for it. We were headed towards awareness of polarization's problems in the 2000s, but the economic downturn briefly magnified it.

This is a very sane view of the situation. I'll bring up a thought I shared on a similar thread a few weeks ago.

I think that the Dems had a very real basis for bipartisan reform at the beginning of the summer. The Wyden plan had exactly the type of cross party support that often makes the basis for significant reform. I can't say that events might not have shifted that bipartisanship, but the GOP Senators on board didn't strike me as likely to switch from that type of bill. But then it felt like the House drove the debate during the summer toward the public option, and in the process drove a wedge into any bipartisan bill.

On tough issues the Senate generally has to lay out the basic compromise, since they have the challenge of their rules. The House can then work out details and resolve them with the Senate. Without a lead from the Senate, bipartisanship starts at a disadvantage.

[Mr.Phips]

I agree with you on financial reform, but if the Democrats fail to pass a bill, will they successfully be able to pin it on Republican obstructionism of the public option, or will the pundits conclude that it's another example of their ineffectiveness despite having 60 seats? The mandate may be bad politics, but it is good policy. And the political downside may be limited as well- I predict that scare stories like people being sent to prison will never materialize. It only makes the people making such claims look hysterical.

What are the Democrats supposed to argue-- give us 62 seats and you'll have an (extremely neutered) public option? How is it likely that the Democrats will emerge out of the 2010 elections with 62 or more seats? And with the extremely polarized environment of today, is governance by supermajority even a viable way to run a democratic government?

This is bigger than just the health care debate. The parties have to learn to work together again and start to reverse the trend of polarization. Polarization is poison to the US. It's slowly destroying us, destroying the political process. Congress has to show that it can function-- and if that means Democrats reaching across the aisle to someone like Snowe, I say go for it. We were headed towards awareness of polarization's problems in the 2000s, but the economic downturn briefly magnified it.

This is a very sane view of the situation. I'll bring up a thought I shared on a similar thread a few weeks ago.

I think that the Dems had a very real basis for bipartisan reform at the beginning of the summer. The Wyden plan had exactly the type of cross party support that often makes the basis for significant reform. I can't say that events might not have shifted that bipartisanship, but the GOP Senators on board didn't strike me as likely to switch from that type of bill. But then it felt like the House drove the debate during the summer toward the public option, and in the process drove a wedge into any bipartisan bill.

On tough issues the Senate generally has to lay out the basic compromise, since they have the challenge of their rules. The House can then work out details and resolve them with the Senate. Without a lead from the Senate, bipartisanship starts at a disadvantage.

Republicans would have tried to block any healthcare reform bill.  Even the Wyden bill.  As long as Obama wants reform, Republicans wont support any reform. 

[muon2]

I agree with you on financial reform, but if the Democrats fail to pass a bill, will they successfully be able to pin it on Republican obstructionism of the public option, or will the pundits conclude that it's another example of their ineffectiveness despite having 60 seats? The mandate may be bad politics, but it is good policy. And the political downside may be limited as well- I predict that scare stories like people being sent to prison will never materialize. It only makes the people making such claims look hysterical.

What are the Democrats supposed to argue-- give us 62 seats and you'll have an (extremely neutered) public option? How is it likely that the Democrats will emerge out of the 2010 elections with 62 or more seats? And with the extremely polarized environment of today, is governance by supermajority even a viable way to run a democratic government?

This is bigger than just the health care debate. The parties have to learn to work together again and start to reverse the trend of polarization. Polarization is poison to the US. It's slowly destroying us, destroying the political process. Congress has to show that it can function-- and if that means Democrats reaching across the aisle to someone like Snowe, I say go for it. We were headed towards awareness of polarization's problems in the 2000s, but the economic downturn briefly magnified it.

This is a very sane view of the situation. I'll bring up a thought I shared on a similar thread a few weeks ago.

I think that the Dems had a very real basis for bipartisan reform at the beginning of the summer. The Wyden plan had exactly the type of cross party support that often makes the basis for significant reform. I can't say that events might not have shifted that bipartisanship, but the GOP Senators on board didn't strike me as likely to switch from that type of bill. But then it felt like the House drove the debate during the summer toward the public option, and in the process drove a wedge into any bipartisan bill.

On tough issues the Senate generally has to lay out the basic compromise, since they have the challenge of their rules. The House can then work out details and resolve them with the Senate. Without a lead from the Senate, bipartisanship starts at a disadvantage.

Republicans would have tried to block any healthcare reform bill.  Even the Wyden bill.  As long as Obama wants reform, Republicans wont support any reform. 

Yes, but with 3 or 4 GOP Senators as cosponsors, the effort to block it with a unified partisan group would be difficult. The problem with the Wyden bill is that Obama did not want to move away from an employer-based system.