If you had told me in November 2008 that Massachusetts would be represented by a Republican in the Senate, I would have had you committed. And yet that has what has occurred. From my admittedly biased viewpoint on the periphery of the Boston media market, I thought Martha Coakley ran an arrogant and nasty media campaign. For example, I'm not sure what she hoped to accomplish by interrupting my football playoffs with ads attacking a guy I had never heard of and blatantly overstating her own accomplishments.What she should have done was to simply say that she was a firm vote in the Democratic camp on the key issues of the day; principally, extending the benefits of more universal health care to the rest of the nation.
What the nation got, instead, was something other than a firm vote in that camp. But don't overstate what this means. President Obama does not now find himself negotiating directly with Senator Brown over his health care agenda. The President and the Senate leadership now have to give a little bit more away to the potential 60th vote in the Senate, which is not Brown but one of his fellow Republican New Englanders -- either Senator from Maine. There are many ways in which this election may have seemed like a referendum on health care reform, and perhaps it was. But regardless of how conservative Brown may be, he is not the marginal vote. That vote moved only slightly to the political right.
For more commentary along these lines, see this column by Steven Pearlstein of The Washington Post.
health care got not a single (R) vote in the Senate
That is to say, we now live in a parliamentary system. As a result, in the real world, this equates to a vote of no confidence. A pretty broken one, since a tiny minority of voters got to decide it, but them's the breaks. In a democracy, you get the government you deserve.
I don't think moderates of either party are going to like what we currently deserve.
maybe more than slightly to the right
Don't forget -- Reid publicly insulted Olympia Snowe a few weeks ago in the NYT, saying that working with her was a "waste of time." I don't think she'll have any interest in sticking her neck out for the Dem agenda any time soon.
Not likely
I don't think that Republicans will allow the Senate to vote on a bill that's any better than the one that the Senate has already passed. The Democrats spent months courting Olympia Snowe, to no avail, so there's little hope that they would get her support now. My guess is that the House will end up passing the version of the bill that the Senate has already passed. All I hope is that they do it quickly.
Incentives, Bayesian Priors etc
"The President and the Senate leadership now have to give a little bit more away to the potential 60th vote in the Senate, which is not Brown but one of his fellow Republican New Englanders -- either Senator from Maine."
You seem to be describing a prior that some amount of incremental concessions could cause some number of Republicans to flip. However, so far the most reasonable estimate of incremental Republican votes per concession is zero, with a variance of zero. Nor do I see any widespread agreement among Republicans that the uninsured are a problem or that the long run cost curve needs to be bent etc - i.e. at a very basic level Republicans do not accept the Democratic framing of the health care issue.
I think this analysis may
I think this analysis may underestimate one factor: that the point "slightly to the political right" (representing the original positions of the Maine senators) in all likelihood shifted more substantially to the right through this election. Apart from the intimations that this represented something of a public referendum on this one issue, it strengthens the Republican party rejectionist leadership, even among famously independently minded senators.
Pivotal Moment and Opportunity
I think the election of Scott Brown presents the GOP with a pivotal moment and rare opportunity.
If GOP can suggest a way to vote on and pass those parts of the health care bill that at least the more reasonable members of their party agree with, they could lose the obstructionist label that their past behavior has earned them and be seen as heroes for doing what the Democrats could not.
On the other hand if they decide to continue to defend the costly, unfair and inefficient health care status quo, spout their ridiculous nonsense about socialism and death panels and block any and all progress, then they should rightly be vilified as the party that prevented the nation from solving an urgent national problem in order to gain narrow partisan advantage.
Labor says "no". So do others.
AFL-CIO legislative director Bill Samuel: "We don’t want the House to pass the Senate bill”.
Republicans certainly have very little motivation to give anything at this point.
And do not forget, a lot of Democrats don't want to push this bill any further for fear that they'll lose their seats too as the cost. (What Democrat with even a mildly competitive seat feels safe today?) Though they will frame their objections and refusals in terms that are acceptable-left: "Of course I support health care reform, but how can I vote for a Senate bill that taxes labor's benefits? ... with that abortion language in it?? ... etc."
Put it all together -- a challenge.
Make them filibuster
Let the Republicans filibuster. Run it on TV. Show the American people just who is responsible for obstructing the people's work in this country.
There is a price to be paid for creating paralysis in government.
If Republicans want to shut down our government, let them do it. And then let everyone know that they are the roadblock to moving ahead in this country.
2010 could become very interesting . . .
Count the votes before encouraging the filibuster.
Let the Republicans filibuster. Run it on TV. Show the American people just who is responsible for obstructing the people's work in this country.
The problems with this strategy is voters are against the health reform by 5-4 ... while the independents who determine all the swing elections are against it 2-1 or more ... as Brown just showed by winning the independents by 50 points (!) 73%-23%.
Put it on TV and the Republicans may re-run it all the way until election day.
Republicans will be proud of a filibuster?
You're kidding, right?
It will make them look like idiots, because they'll be holding up the people's business, not just healthcare. It portrays them as unable to compromise or work together on ANYTHING.
This happened in the MN leg 2-3 years ago (total obstruction by the Republicans, led by Michele Bachmann when she was in state senate). She led with an issue that, yes, the people supported 5-4 (or 6-4, I can't remember) called gay marriage (she was against it, as were most Minnesota voters at the time).
That didn't matter. What people saw was paralysis of government. Republicans were kicked out in the following election, in significant numbers. I know this firsthand, as I worked a race that threw out an incumbent Republican in a Republican-indexed district. It wasn't about the issue, it was about the fact that they'd obstructed and weren't doing ANY business for the people.
I say let them filibuster. It just highlights their hyperpartisanship and inability to work across the aisle to solve the pressing problems facing our nation.
Go for it Republicans. Reinforce that "party of no" moniker. Works for me . . .
And about Bachmann
Before you say that she was successful with her tactic (because she got elected to Congress), I think it merits mention that she's from a gerrymandered Republican district. They could run Bozo the Clown in the 6th CD with an "R" behind his name on the ballot, and he'd get elected.
And some people voted for Bachmann just to get her out of our statehouse (not kidding, I knocked doors and they said, "I'm voting for her because she can't do anything in the House of Reps, she'd just be one of over 400 there, and we don't want her messing up Minnesota again"). Not kidding, there were even Dems who voted for her to "kick her upstairs".
I've found, in all my years of working campaigns (I've worked for both Republican and Democratic candidates over the years) and talking to thousands of voters, that people want competent people (read someone with a brain) who can work together to run our government. In the end being obstructionist doesn't impress anyone, because it's a cheap and childish political tactic that doesn't get the people's work done.
That's pretty much the bottom line. The Republicans are taking a big risk with it, IMO. Most in the middle expect their government to work for the people. And foreigners (foreign investors I talk to, for example) don't really see a difference between the two parties here . . . they just want to see leadership that leads the world out of this recession. They want leadership that fixes the failed banking system and puts the markets on a fair playing field. If they don't see movement in that direction they'll pull their money out of the US. That's what is happening . . . they are concerned that the Obama agenda (and many overseas like Obama, Europeans and Asians) is being derailed. Some of them are pulling money from US markets these past two days (since MA election).
The Republicans need to see beyond getting their butts re-elected (and saying anything, including outright lies -- my new favorite is "death panels", to do that) and work for the greater good of the planet. Anything else leaves a nasty legacy and prolongs human suffering . . .
Brown as the new Ben Nelson?
President Obama does not now find himself negotiating directly with Senator Brown over his health care agenda.
Oh, but he may well, over health care and a lot of other things.
At least according to this analysis which, based on his voting record, puts Brown to the left of Snowe as the most liberal Republican, and just to the right of Nelson, the most conservative Democrat.
That gives Brown the 60th vote -- a lucrative position to trade on.
For the moment Brown and the tea party people may be smiling at each other -- but Mass. is the most liberal of states, Brown is going to want to get re-elected, and there is a reason why he has the voting record he has.
And how many senators would pass on the lucre that comes with having the 60th vote?