Few people actually care about partisanship

Related Post Roulette

20 Responses

  1. Avatar Jaybird says:

    I agree with this 100%.

    The seeds for why Republicans are fighting tooth/nail are contained within as well. There is no, absolutely no, (political) upside for compromise to get a handful of conservative riders attached.

    Additionally, if no Republicans have their name attached to the bill, there is no (political) downside for the Republicans when folks above a certain age start getting fliers explaining how the new Medicare bill will mean that we all will save money because co-pays will be going up by $X or that being assigned a much more local doctor will save everyone time and the fact that you won’t be forced to choose your doctor anymore will mean more savings on overhead for everyone.Report

  2. Avatar zic says:

    Health care reform will be a done deal by 2010.

    And by the time 2010 comes around, we’ll be discussing immigration and deep in investigations over the nasty little things done by VP Cheney.

    Republican base gone nuts is the likely result. I predict Republican losses coming from center-right folks disgusted into staying home in a mid-term election.Report

  3. Avatar North says:

    Agree in general. If the Dems get something out that people consider substantive their base is going to be inspired and turn out well. Frankly the Republican disarray at this point seems significant. Can anyone tell me who the Republican appointed successor is? McCain is done. But I don’t see an obvious heir. Isn’t orderly succession how it’s usually done on that side of the aisle?Report

    • Avatar Jaybird says:

      Bush redefined the party.Report

    • There’s a lot of players out there. How things look in 2011 will determine if the Right picks a strong contendor or a sacraficial lamb.Report

    • Avatar Katherine says:

      It’s too soon to tell. If nobody new shows up it could be Palin, Romney, or Huckabee (between those three, I’d predict Romney; Palin’s too unpopular and Romney, unlike the other two, can counterfeit being a moderate), but with three years could go it could also be someone completely new. I don’t think in 2005 many people would have predicted Obama as the Democratic candidate.Report

  4. To respond to the orginal post: I’m curious about a couple of things. Democrats seem to believe that the public will forgive them for a partisan vote. Fair enough. But isn’t that supposing that everything turns out like roses? I mean, yes, it’s probably going to be hard to determine if it was a successful bill by next year’s election, but a lot more analysis will be done. More details are going to be out there. just like the stimulus, opinions will be formed and while some who might be effected negatively by the bill won’t have suffered yet, some who will benefit won’t have…and something tells me they have less patience.

    Perception of the bill and it’s ultimate success will determine Democratic chances in 2010 and 2012. Given the way Democrat’s sought the political cover of bipartisanship, i’m not convinced they believe it will succeed, which means there’s at least a 50/50 chance it won’t.Report

    • Avatar Kyle says:

      Given the way Democrat’s sought the political cover of bipartisanship, i’m not convinced they believe it will succeed, which means there’s at least a 50/50 chance it won’t.

      I’m not convinced of this. I think the President wants bipartisanship because that’s his shtick/MO, also because I think Presidents have institutional incentives to prefer bipartisan bills. I think saavy Democratic Senators wanted bipartisanship because they think (and probably would) get more of the reform they want through normal legislative processes than they might down the risky road of reconciliation.

      Finally, I think the Blue Dog Dems have their own sometimes mystifying calculus of why they’re seeking bipartisanship, surely some so they can get the Republicans to ask for things they want but don’t want to be on record asking for. Or to keep their seats. Who can fathom the mind of a BDD?

      Either way, I’m not convinced that the political incentives and relatively low risk, high reward outlay for a bipartisan bill reflects so directly on a Democratic fear that they might be wrong. I’d be willing to bet good money that the time between today and the last time anyone on the hill feared they might be wrong more than the illusion of being wrong could be measured in decades, if not quarter-centuries.

      If you were talking about the optical success of the bill and not substantive success, Mike, than strike the last (three paragraphs).Report

  5. Avatar Kyle says:

    With Jaybird, total agreement here.Report

  6. Avatar Bob Cheeks says:

    The commie-Dems can have a ‘health care’ bill anytime they want. History will tell us if they pay a price. I think it all depends on how far to the left the American public have swung.
    I do know the congressional commie-Dems are real goosey back in their districts which kind of indicates they know they’re stepping in dog doo.
    The POTUS’s goal, of course, is to wreck the economy and create the people’s paradise outta the ashes, think Yugoslavia (1948).Report

  7. Avatar North says:

    Seriously though I don’t think that the affairs on the healthcare bill will be clear enough in 2012 to necessarily define the election unless it’s a huge stinker or a real gem. Since I anticipate that it will be a muddle somewhere between the extremes I’m guessing that barring a black swan the election will hinge on the economy. If the green shoots we’ve been seeing turn into full fledged trees that’ll give the dems a hugely powerful narrative.Report

  8. Avatar EMY says:

    “Decent” does not mean good.Report