HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION STARTS OVER
Now that Democrats have lost their 60 vote "filibuster proof" majority they have two things to consider. One, Scott Brown's election to the Senate from Massachusetts is similar to Barack Obama's election in November of 2008. Brown recieved financial contributions and volunteer campaign help from all over the country. Obama volunteers poured into "toss-up" states and helped win the election. Brown's volunteers came from many states to make sure Brown was elected to stop the massive legislative overhaul of health care. And, two, Democrats in the House and Senate got a serious wake-up call about how unpopular health care legislation is with many Americans. The Democrats now have to find some middle ground for health care legislation and also go home in the Fall and face angry voters. Voters were angry in November 2008, angry when the elected Repulican Governors in NJ and VA and are still angry.
The House and Senate versions of health care overhaul are very different, now that Senate Republicans has the fiflibuster back, they'll have a say in any re-write of the legislation. They had no voice when they did not have the filibuster. Any re-crafted health care legislation (if there is a new bill) with Republican input will be even difficult to reconcile with the House version.
2010 SENATE ELECTIONS
Republicans feel they can win the senate seats currently held by Democrats in North Dakota, Delaware, Arkansas, Colorado and Nevada. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's numbers in Nevada are not good because he suffers from the same situation as former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Reid is a liberal from a conservative state. As the Majority Leader, he is being saddled with all the "sins" of everyone of his Democrat colleagues. Republicans have six Senators retiring or running for other offices. If Republicans can win half of those six seats and half of the five aforementined races they'll have a net gain of 5 or 6 seats. Democrats will still be the majority but with fewer seats. It would take a tsunami of voter revolt for the Republicans to be the majority party.
2010 HOUSE ELECTIONS
Democrats will maintain their majority in the House, but their numbers will be diminished perhaps by 20 or 25 seats. Republicans have started to recover (some of the damage is permanent) from being the party of President George W. Bush. At the same time, Republicans have taken a page from the Democrat's playbook and recruited candidates for the House who "fit" the Congressional District. In 2006 and 2008 Democrats recruited conservative Democrats to run in open and swing districts.
Some Democrats elected to the House in 2008 by riding Barack Obama's coat tails won't have that help in 2010.
Republicans are hampered by their internal debate about how conservative you have to be to be a "real" Republican. If they limit themsleves to only conservatives, they eliminate the moderates and swing voters who are the key to vicitory in every election.
President Obama knows that voters have short memories; the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghaniatan are now "his." Health care legislation is popular with some and quite un-popular with those who see it as a governemnt take over 1/6 of the economy and that health care will be "rationed" as it can be in Canada and England.
In the entire history of politics, one party has slected someone in the other party to villianize as part of an overall campaing strategy. Republicans have selected Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are their targets of what is wrong with America. As we saw in 2008 and most other elections, as many people voted "for" Obama as the voted "against" George W. Bush and the Republican Party.
|
