Well, I’m just going by what I’m hearing on MSNBC, but the way they explain it is that it allows any Dem who wants to claim he or she didn’t vote for the bill to do so-- even if they voted for the changes. So it’s not clear to me that there will be a vote on the bill itself. If there is, why the language about it “deeming” to pass?
Of course there’s a vote on the Senate bill itself. Otherwise how does it pass? That’s not the same as saying there’s a vote on the text of the bill.
It’s a doofy procedural maneuver that’s designed to give Democratic members political cover, and it will entirely fail in that. But there’s no question under established law that it’s a vote on the bill. It is.
–Cliffy
The people DO care about process. And if this bill passes through the Dems’ shenanigans, they will show just how much they care come November. Either way they’re in for a beating. The only question is how bad will it be.
Got it.
Now I’m off to see Alice in Wonderland.
Yeah, I have to wonder if any Democrat is going to get a pass on this by saying he voted against it before he voted for it. Or however you say it.
You call it passing through Democratic shenanigans; I call it passing despite Republican shenanigans. It’s only shenanigans if you start from the premise that bills “should” be passed by 60% supermajorities, rather than the premise that they “should” pass by simple majority.
Back to the OP:
1: I think it will pass. A lot of folks who have spoken out against it did so because they wanted something a little different in some way or the other, not because they were fundamentally opposed. With the passed Senate bill (passed without any shenanigans at all, mind you) being immutable, those folks don’t have any room for negotiation any more, so when push comes to shove, I think they’ll vote yes.
2: Something will happen eventually. But then, I have a physicist’s notion of “for all time and evermore”, not a politician’s. It may be that the way we’ll get health care reform is that the revolutionaries who overthrow the current system will build it into the new Constitution, or that we’ll be conquered and incorporated into Canada, or whatever. Forever is a long time.
3: Passing a reform will certainly help the Democrats more than it hurts them, come November and 2012. Reversion to the mean alone will probably still mean lost seats, but we’ll lose more seats without a health care bill than with it. Even without, though, I don’t think we’ll lose the majority in either house outright.
4: Same as 3, really. It’ll certainly be one issue, but not the only one. Again, whichever way it goes, I’d say that Obama’s chance of holding onto the White House is better than even, but will be helped by a passed reform.
5: I have no clue. Certainly not until the next election where the Dems gain seats, whenever that is.
If you say so. My contention is that process is almost completely meaningless (read: well fewer than 5% of possible voters will change their potential vote in November based on the method in which health care reform was passed).
Dems will certainly lose seats in both houses, but I strongly believe they will lose fewer votes by passing this bill than by not passing it, and that the method they use is far less important than whether it passes or not. If this procedure makes it more likely to pass, that is obviously a trade-off worth making.
You forget that politics is not a zero-sum game - passion and success for your side breeds excitement and brings people to the polls. Losses and failures demoralize your side and cause fewer base voters to show up on election day.
What they are going to be able to say, and what this rule buys them, is that they only voted for the modified bill. That is, they can rightly say that they didn’t vote for the Cornhusker Kickback, for example. Or the Senate abortion-funding language.
Instead they voted for a bill that modified the Senate version, while also passing the exact text of the Senate version as the Constitution requires. Then the Senate passes the rule (in it’s exact text as well) through reconciliation and, presto, law (well, as soon as Obama passes it).
If people gave a shit about process, there wouldn’t be a filibuster. Very few people care. They should but they don’t.
And the idea of calling “deem and pass” Democratic shenanigans is ignorant at best, but more likely disingenuous. Over the past decade plus (note – more GOP Congresses than Dems) this method has been used for 25-30% of all bills passed in the House. Republicans love to pretend that long-standing procedural traditions used to their advantage in the past are horrifying violations of the constitutional order when they’re used by Democrats. But it’s a goddamn lie.
–Cliffy
My impression is that almost 100% of the people opposed to this bill on the substance are crying about process right now, and 100% of those in favor of the substance of the bill are unconcerned about process. The net favorability (or unfavorability) of the Democrats will be exactly the same regardless of what particular method they use on the bill.
It’s virtually 50/50 now. It all comes down to roughly a dozen Congressmen. Actually while I am mostly against this I have a slight morbid desire for reform to pass since if it proves to be a failure Democrats will lose the White House and Congress for a generation.
My impression is that the republicans know that it will be a disaster for **them **if it passes. Hence the efforts made to not pass it at all.
But I also think that not voting for it will eventually blow in their faces (If it fails it will be not just the republican’s fault, it will be thanks also to some conservative democrats), this is because the current system is not sustainable, it is another bubble that is growing in front of our eyes and the politicians that were against the vote will have a crisis in the near future that not only involves the financial health of the nation, but its health.
Wow, I have no idea if this means anything, but according to Intrade, the projected chances of the bill passing (based on share price) went up fifty points in the past three days. Even if it’s all just perception (and really, with Intrade, it sort of is), that’s a remarkable turnaround IN perception, and people are putting actual money on it. WTF happened there?
The democractic “leadership”* has put themselves in the position of this being seen as a make or break vote not just for HCR, but for their entire near-to-medium term political future. So now the smart money is on them getting it done, not matter what they have to do to get it done. A kind of “burning your ships” strategy, because the problem has so far not been their ability to win, but their willingness to fight. Or they have just been outmanoeuvred by the pubs into this positions.
- leadership or cat herders?
It’s really just up about 20 points. A bigger question might be what happened on Wednesday when the price dropped by 30 points at the open.
With AARP coming out in favor of it and advocating their membership to encourage their congressman to vote for it there’s now a much stronger chance.
Ah, yes, very true; I failed to notice that. But it still made up the drop and then some.
Stupakhas just come out in favor of the bill. That will bring in eight more votes. This thing might actually pass.
Not quite yet.
Now yes. He just announced it.