It is great to see the stupendous effort put forth by so many folks here and elsewhere to stop the misguided Obama-McConnell tax deal. But even though we have to fight the good fight regarding the deal, not give up hope and all that, unfortunately, I think it will ultimately pass both the House and the Senate. And the longer term implications of it will be really terrible for the country as well as for the Democratic Party.
Here's how...
In the House, there are 255 Dems and 178 Regressives. Though there are 52 teabaggers, I doubt if more than 5 will oppose the deal. So that means 173 Regressives will vote for the deal, and 44 votes are needed to hit the magic number of 217 (out of 433, with 2 seats vacant).
There are 54 Blue Dogs so even if up to 10 of them were to vote against the deal, the WH can still reach that magic mark of 217 votes - without even a single non Blue Dog vote. However, I think there will also be some 20-30 out of 201 will vote for the deal (saying that this is better than nothing, their constituents can't afford to see their tax rates rise etc. etc.), which gives the WH a substantial cushion.
On the Senate side, there are 58 Dems and 42 Regressives. Of the 42, only one - Voinovich might actually vote against the deal. I read that DeMint is opposed to the deal, but that might be more his way of showing McConnell who's boss going forward and when push comes to shove, he will vote for the deal.
Now, Sanders wants to filibuster in the Senate, but the WH will get enough votes to defeat the filibuster. Firstly, all 42 Regressives will vote to break the filibuster (even though Voinovich might vote against the actual tax cut package itself). That means 18 more votes are needed. Look at this list - Baucus, Bayh, Ben Nelson, Conrad, Lieberman, Lincoln, Manchin, McCaskill, Pryor... there we go, we are almost half way! Add a few more like Feinstein and her ilk, and it is not inconceivable that the magic number of 18 can be reached.
This will have far-reaching implications for the country as well as for the Democratic Party. Contrary to what Obama thinks, the Regressives will be back to their hostage-taking business in March when the debt ceiling issue comes up. By that time, the ineffectiveness and naivete of Obama will be plain for all to see. This will be followed by progressives putting up a candidate against Obama in the primaries and even if they manage to avoid a 1968-style mess at the Dem Convention, Obama will enter the 2012 elections as a very weak candidate and if the Regressives choose a halfway decent candidate who can appeal to independents and moderate Democrats, like Mitt Romney, they can win the 2012 Presidential elections.
And given that the Dems have to defend 23 seats in the Senate versus only 10 for the Regressives, it is quite likely that we will see the Regressives take over the Senate as well. I think they will get 54 or 55 seats (and their majority leader will NEVER ever say that he can't get things done without 60 votes!).
In case of the House, the power of redistricting will give the Regressives 10 more seats (i.e. 242 + 10) and they are unlikely to lose more than a handful of seats, especially when the top of the ticket has such a weak Democratic incumbent running for a second term as President.
Sorry, but this is how I see things play out in the next 2 years. I will be the happiest if events prove me wrong.