Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Live Digest: 9/13 (224 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Point (0+ / 0-)

    The point is that without Republican abuse of the filibuster, or better yet the lack of a filibuster in the first place, it wouldn't have mattered whether or not Scott Brown won or how Nelson or Lieberman may have voted. Without the filibuster, all we would've needed were 50 votes, which we clearly had even with several defecting Democrats.

    •  Well, sure. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BeloitDem, wadingo, bythesea

      But the loss of that 60th vote made it impossible to go back to the Senate other than for the stuff which could be achieved via reconciliation.

      Also, we only won in the House 219-212; 34 Dems defected, and I believe it was all from the right.  A more progressive bill might have failed there.

      •  You're missing the point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gabjoh, ArkDem14

        If Harry Reid had gone ahead and killed the filibuster at the start of the 111th Congress, or if even one or two Republicans had decided to be decent people about the process, then it wouldn't have mattered.

        As far as the House is concerned, a more progressive bill actually did pass the House in December of 2009: the Affordable Health Care for America Act. There were some important differences between the House and Senate bills, but most of all, the House bill included a public option. All the Senate had to do was pass the House bill. There were probably 50 votes in the Senate Reid could have gathered to vote for such a bill. The problem, again, was that he didn't do anything about the filibuster and every single Republican chose to be an obstructionist. Without those two factors, Coakley's election was irrelevant.

      •  Almost all of the Democratic "no's" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bjssp, ramesh, R30A

        were from the right, many of whom were from members who weren't especially conservative themselves but represented red-leaning constituencies and decided a "no" vote would help them politically; many lost anyway.  (I'm not sure how much sympathy I should have for them.)

        Steve Lynch purportedly voted against it from the left, claiming it didn't go far enough.  But I've always found it hard to buy that explanation; if it was good enough for the entire Progressive Caucus to vote for it at that point, why not him?

        37, MD-8 (MD-6 after 2012) resident, NOVA raised, Euro/Anglophile Democrat

        by Mike in MD on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:37:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It was just multiple issues (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, Stephen Wolf, WisJohn, betelgeux

        In a perfect world, Democrats would have abolished the Filibuster at the beginning of the 111th Congress, and would have gone straight to work immediately.

        If they would have passed a "Romneycare" bill quickly in March or even February of 2009 with either a strong or weak public option, a national exchange, an enrollment date starting in 2011 (or even mid 2010), etc... then it would have been fine.  They could have then spent time trying to fix the economy.

        Democrats took too long trying to get Republican votes (Chuck Grassley...). Democrats took too long writing the bill. Concessions to get 60 votes weakened the bill (state exchanges, delayed enrollment date to 2014 to get a better  CBO score). There are at least a couple dozen other issues there that harmed us.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site