Nate Silver:

Back in 2008, the smart liberal spin on "post-partisanship" -- one which I frankly bought into -- is that it was in part an effort to put a popular, centrist sheen on a relatively liberal agenda. Instead, as Leonhardt points out, what Obama has wound up with is an unpopular, liberal sheen on a relatively centrist agenda.

Oh yes. The Theory of Change. One positive result from Massachusetts is the the realization that the Village Dems were wrong about the Post Partisan Unity Schtick. You can't fix a problem until you admit you have it.

Speaking for me only

Andy Stern:

The House should pass the Senate's health insurance reform bill - with an agreement that it will be fixed, fixed right, and fixed right away through a parallel process. [. . . ] The House and Senate must move forward together. And, there is no reason they cannot move forward together to make those changes through any means possible -- whether through reconciliation or other pieces of moving legislation.

(Emphasis supplied.) While the language is different than the AFL-CIO's, the message is the same - the Stand Alone Senate bill is unacceptable.

Speaking for me only

Maybe the Village Dems can pick up the slack for the November elections if the unions sit them out, but the AFL-CIO made their views plain regarding the possible passage of a Stand Alone Senate health bill:

AFL-CIO legislative director Bill Samuel tells me in an interview that labor won’t support any efforts by the House to pass the Senate health bill in its current form [. . .] “We don’t want the House to pass the Senate bill,” Samuel said a few moments ago by phone. “We would not be in favor of passing the Senate bill without fixing the problems that we’ve identified.”

(Emphasis supplied.) How are the Village Dems at GOTV and such?

Speaking for me only

The Plan B discussions being forwarded by the Village Dems and Village Bloggers seem to focus on the idea of the House passing the Senate bill and, as an afterthought, maybe, fixing the bill through reconciliation. It is clear is that they seem oblivious to the fact that the only constituency for the Stand Alone Senate Bill is them. Consider this Open Letter to House Dems from Jonathan Cohn:

Dear Nervous and Frustrated House Democrat,

It’s up to you. [. . .] [I]f you find a way to pass legislation, then you have something to show for your efforts--an accomplishment you can tout, legitimately, as making people's lives better. [. . .] [Y]ou can pass health care reform very quickly if you want. All you have to do is vote for the Senate bill, as written. Yes, I’m aware of its flaws. But it’s also far better than nothing.

(Emphasis supplied.) Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, the idea of "touting" the Senate health bill in the 2010 elections elicits hearty guffaws from Republicans. And rightly so. The Village Dems need a better pitch. And it happens to be there for them. From Cohn's letter:

Jacob Hacker and Daniel Hopkins write:

Forget the question of whether a Republican Senate victory in Massachusetts spells the end of health reform. It doesn't -- unless Democrats let it. The Senate has already passed a bill that is far from perfect but far better than nothing. [. . .] [T]he House should simply enact it in return for strong commitments from President Obama and Democratic leaders that they will fight to improve the bill in the future, including through the filibuster-proof budget process.

There are a few problems with this Plan B. Politically, the Senate bill is NOT "far better than nothing." (As to whether it is "far better than nothing" policy-wise, that is a matter of irrelevant opinions - no group of voters thinks so.) First, let's mention a word that Dem Villagers seem to have forgotten - UNIONS. There is nothing good for unions in the Senate bill. There is a lot bad in the bill for unions. Democrats need unions to work for them - especially in off year elections. "In the future" means what exactly? If it does not mean before the November elections, then it is meaningless. The unions' concerns need to be addressed BEFORE November. More . . .

Let me first state what I think this means for 2012 - it means that Barack Obama will win Massachusetts by double digits and Scott Brown will be unceremoniously dumped as senator from Massachusetts. No matter what the Dems do in response. I start with this view because I think it is important understand what the lessons of Massachusetts are about - November 2010.

Now the Massachusetts result provides many lessons for November 2010. Joe Sudbay cites to analysis by Scott Jensen of PPP:

Peter Daou in HuffPo, Liberal Bloggers to Dems and Obama: We Told You So, explores the two most prevalent reasons for the Republican win in Massachusetts:

The first, promulgated by conservatives, is that the new administration has moved too far to the left and alienated a large swath of independent and moderate voters.

The second, pushed by progressive activists and bloggers, is that the administration hasn't been true enough to fundamental Democratic principles, has embraced some of Bush's worst excesses on civil liberties, and has ditched popular ideas (like the public option) in favor of watered down centrist policies, thus looking weak and ineffectual.

The conservative argument is unpersuasive.

I think he's got a point. But I'll take it a few steps further. [More...]

I'll write about Massachusetts tomorrow. Tonight I see Josh Marshall is melting down because of this:

Two high-profile progressives--Reps. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)--said the only way they could sign on to the Senate bill is if it was accompanied immediately, or even preceded by, a separate bill, making a number of major preemptive changes to what they regard as an inferior package.

"It would have to be so quick that they happen at the same time," Weiner said. [...] We've gotta recognize we have an entirely different scenario tomorrow." "You should do the other stuff first and then pass the Senate bill," Nadler told me. "I don't see how I could vote for the Senate bill," otherwise.

For those who think it is simple for the House to just pass the Senate bill, consider this:

[A]ccording to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll [. . .], only 33 percent say President Obama's health-reform effort is a good idea, versus 46 percent who consider it a bad idea.

It is simply ridiculous to argue that the simple political calculus is to pass the Senate bill as is. At the least, a play to the Democratic base, especially unions, through a reconciliation modification is essential.

Speaking for me only

Josh Marshall writes about the political calculations for House Dems:

I think this is very simple. And we're about to see what the congressional Dems are made of. Obama too. [. . .] For the House liberals, it was clear that only very limited revisions were going to be gained in the House-Senate negotiations. It's one thing if someone wasn't going to vote for the final bill at all. But if they were, the differences between the senate bill and whatever the negotiation was going to produce simply were not going to be big enough -- not remotely -- to justify voting against it.

For the conservative Dems, if they already voted for the more liberal House bill, it won't help them a wink to refuse to vote for the senate bill now -- whether that means casting a no vote or just preventing it from coming up for a vote at all. This should be obvious to anyone who knows how 30 second TV ads work (or frankly, even how very reasonable political argument works). And the lesson of 1994 is clear: the folks who killed health care in 1994 didn't gain any benefit from it. They were the ones who got slaughtered in November.

This is absurd analysis. I'll explain why on the other side.

There is a lot to disagree with in this Ezra Klein piece, but I want to focus on the new drumbeat that the "controversial differences" between the House and the Senate bill are few:

That would require House Democrats to do something they don't wish to do and pass the Senate bill unchanged. But passing the Senate bill unchanged would not mean that health-care reform cannot be changed. The bulk of the controversial differences between the two bills have to do with money -- how you raise it and how much of it you spend. Those differences can be resolved through the 51-vote reconciliation process. There's even an open reconciliation vehicle waiting to be used.

(Emphasis supplied.) Ezra is talking about the excise tax. But this is not the "bulk of the differences." It is really astounding that Ezra, who's own list of "fixes" to the Senate bill was quite long, argues this. Imagine what the House, who basically disagreed with Ezra's reform ideas, thinks. The House, especially House progressives, need to bargain to their maximum leverage now. As Ezra says, the Senate bill is sitting there - passage of that bill by the House can wait until the reconciliation agreement is hammered out. If that takes a couple of weeks or more, so be it. The elections are not until November.

Speaking for me only

Here it comes:

The real question Democrats have to ask themselves is: how come the greatest piece of social legislation since Medicare is something a progressive Democratic candidate for Ted Kennedy's seat has to speak so defensively about?

And we can look no further than Howard Dean, and MSNBC, and Arianna Huffington, and, yes, some columnists at the Times and bloggers here at TPM--you know, real progressives--who have lambasted Obama again and again since last March over arguable need-to-haves like the "public option," as if nobody else was listening. They've been thinking: "Oh, if only we ran things, how much more subtle would the legislation be," as if 41 senators add up to subtle. Meanwhile the undecideds are thinking: "Hell, if his own people think he's a sell-out and jerk, why should we support this?"

Now there is a winning political strategy . . . for Republicans. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. If the Dem Party reacts likes this guy, that will be blowing off a leg.

Speaking for me only