democrats

There has been a lot of polls come out over the past 48 hours showing the Massachusetts special election for Kennedy’s seat was turning a tide and heading towards a possible defeat for Democrats. Now there is a new poll that may give Democrats some breathing room:

A new Boston Globe poll shows Martha Coakley (D), "buoyed by her durable statewide popularity, enjoys a solid, 15-percentage-point lead" among likely voters over rival Scott Brown (R) in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race, 50% to 35%.

In fact, Coakley's lead grows to 17 points -- 53% to 36% -- when undecideds leaning toward a candidate are included in the tally.

I can’t wait to see the outcome of this race. It will be interesting to see which poll gets it the closest. That will be a big indicator as to who to trust in the cycle this year.

By the time the House and Senate get back in session and get their differences hammered out, we might not have 60 votes for the bill to pass:

Playing it cautious, the Cook Political Report moves the U.S. Senate special election in Massachusetts from the Solid Democratic column to the Lean Democratic column.

"At this point, we suspect that the race has indeed closed somewhat and that the result will probably be closer than it ought to be, but we continue to believe that Brown has a very uphill struggle in his quest to pull off a Massachusetts Miracle. At the same time, we have a well-earned appreciation for how unpredictable special elections can be even in states or congressional districts that sit solidly in one party's camp or the other."

I couldn’t imagine a bigger gut punch to Democrats than for the seat of the late Ted Kennedy to go to a Republican, and to make that even worse, if the seat then becomes the nail in the coffin for health care reform.

Wow they are dropping like flies today:

Embattled Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (D) has scheduled a press conference at his home in Connecticut Wednesday at which he is expected to announce he will not seek re-election, according to sources familiar with his plans.

Dodd's retirement comes after months of speculation about his political future, and amid faltering polling numbers and a growing sense among the Democratic establishment that he could not win a sixth term. It also comes less than 24 hours after Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) announced he would not seek re-election.

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is widely expected to step into the void filled by Dodd and, at least at first blush, should drastically increase Democrats' chances of holding the seat.

Dodd has been trailing the Republicans in recent polls, so this is actually good news. People are predicting that Blumenthal will have a much better chance.

UPDATE:

This tweet from PPP Polling explains why a Dodd retirement is great news for Democrats:

Our CT polling is confirming a Blumenthal/Dodd swap would make the seat uber safe for Dems

I got a feeling they have talked Blumenthal into running and figured this would be a great way to soften the blow of Dorgan retiring. The timing makes perfect sense.

Just now breaking on MSNBC. Dorgan not running is a big blow to Democrats and progressives. His loss will be felt big.

UPDATE:

Dorgan’s statement is online.

Jim DeMint is on the losing end of an argument and instead of saying “oops, sorry”, he is down right determined to dig in and continue his crusade to keep this country less safe:

A Republican senator who has been blocking President Barack Obama's nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration complains that Democrats are trying to rush a vote on the nominee without adequate debate.

Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina has placed a hold on the nomination of former FBI agent and police detective Erroll Southers.

DeMint said Wednesday that he is concerned that Southers would let TSA screeners join a labor union.

Ezra Klein interviewed Sen. Tom Harkin and this really caught my eye:

Tell me a bit about your reform bill. When you first introduced this, Joe Lieberman was your co-sponsor, right?

Well, I introduced that first in 1995, when we were in the minority. I'm going to reintroduce that again in January. And people are going to say I only worry about this because I'm in the majority. But I come with clean hands! I started when I was in the minority!

The idea is to give some time for extended debate but eventually allow a majority to work its will. I do believe there's some reason to have extended debate. If a group of senators filibusters a bill, you want to take their worries seriously. Make sure you're not missing something. My proposal will do that. It says that on the first vote, you need 60. Then you have to wait two days, and on the third day, you need 57 votes. And then you need to wait two days, and on the third day, it's 54 votes. And then you'd wait another two days, and on the third day, it would be 51 votes.

I really hope he is successful in this move, but I’m not too optimistic. The problem is that even Democrats in the majority realize that a time will come when they are in the minority again and will want the power of the filibuster. You also have a problem with people like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman. The power of the filibuster is what gave them so much leverage over health care, and I doubt they will want to get rid of that, despite the fact that Lieberman was the co-sponsor of this bill in 1995.

Something I have been saying all along was just repeated on Countdown by former health insurance executive Wendell Potter – there is nothing to stop insurance companies from raising rates.

The bill backers have been touting out charts and tables derived from the CBO report to highlight savings with the new reform. One thing they either don’t realize or don’t want to convey is that the CBO numbers are purely an estimate. A key variable in there will be the insurance companies “playing by the rules”.

As an example we have the 85% medical loss ratio, which states that 85% of premiums must go towards health care. Well administrative costs are considered health care, and there’s a lot of ways for the insurance companies to play with the numbers to get a higher number that what it should be.

And anyone who believes that the insurance companies will play by the rules and not try to figure out loopholes like this is sadly mistaken. I guarantee they already have lawyers and accountants figuring out exactly what they will be able to squeeze past the system, and the fact that enforcing the medical loss ratio will be an entirely new system for the government, we can expect such loopholes and backdoors to be very easy to get in right now.

But I am sure we will “fix it later” because somehow the Democrats are going to magically have a more solid majority than they do now when these problems really start to show their ugly little heads. Meanwhile we will all be forced, by law, to fork over our money to this system.

Seriously – if that is progressive then I am sorry I ever called myself one.

McJoan over at DailyKos has put together one hell of a post highlighting the good and bad of the Senate health care bill. Bottom line – if we can get rid of the mandates I think we have something we can all stomach and then work on. In all honesty the mandates should be removed and used as a bargaining tool with the insurance companies at a later date. Of course that would mean that Democrats actually knew how to negotiate and we know that isn’t true.

A serious question to the bill supporters out there. Do you think if public options are brought up again that the very strong lobbying arm of the health insurance industry won’t work as hard to defeat them then as they are now? Short of having some serious reform on lobbying happen in the interim, I don’t see any real hope at a public option later.