As the Democratic Congressional Leadership considers a number of options to pass the President’s health care reform, campaign challengers and third-party organizations prepare a number of attacks that weaken party members everyday (like this one).

It seems as Democrats are currently painted in a corner as they ponder failure or passage of the legislation through a parliamentary loophole (aka, without a real vote). From my perspective, the Dems are in a lose-lose-lose position.

First, Dems lose everyday health care reform is still alive. Dozens of Republican opponents (and even some conservative Democratic primary opponents) are campaigning that they would be the “no” vote. In virtually every competitive district in the nation, a majority of voters oppose the health care reform for a number of reasons. Even if the reform is passed, the benefits won’t start fast enough to put down the nay-sayers.

Second, Dems lose if they pass reform without a vote. Now that Republican Scott Brown holds the magical 60th vote in the Senate, Democrats are considering the use of a parliamentary loophole that would enact the legislation without a real vote. This serves to only rally the voters who strongly oppose the reform and excites a group of people hell-bent on ousting every Dem who allows passage in this way.

Finally, Democrats lose if they fail. Despite being the best option, failing to pass health care reform emboldens Republicans and renders the White House powerless and vulnerable for the 2012 elections.

There is no doubt that health care reform, no matter its fate, will be seen as a major reason for the coming Republican renewal.

The public still down on Obamacare (via Resurgent Republic)…

• By 52 to 39, Americans oppose President Obama’s handling of health care. Newsweek Survey, 2/17-18.

• By a 49 to 42 percent margin, Americans oppose the health care reforms proposed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Gallup Survey, 2/23.

• Should Senate Democrats use reconciliation to pass health care reform, they would be at odds with a majority of Americans, 52 to 39 percent. Independents agree, 53 to 38 percent. Gallup Survey, 2/23.

While we won’t know the effect on the public’s perception, the President’s Health Care Summit seems to have had an effect internally of further muddying the water for supporters of the would be health reform.

From the Politico:

Democrats wake up after Thursday’s health care summit staring down another deadline to get their bill done, exactly four weeks to Easter break.

They’ve blown through most every deadline before, so there’s no guarantee they won’t this time either. President Barack Obama didn’t help by leaving the door open to compromise with Republicans – even if it takes weeks.

So that means a party looking to emerge from the summit with a clear sense of the path forward instead find itself in the same old place – fighting the clock to finish health care, with an uncertain timeline, a complex legislative path and no idea if its leaders can muster the votes.

“We hope based upon this discussion that we can move forward, but move forward we will,â€� said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

But the truth is, the Democrats are no more certain of getting health care done after the summit than they were before. The seven-hour session did little to change the underlying dynamics of the debate.

The bottomline here is that the longer it takes, the less likely passage becomes.

When Sarah Palin resigned from being Alaska’s Governor, we opined that she was not yet dead politically.

However, in the seven months since announcing her resignation she has not been able to improve her image nationally:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 4-8, 2010. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5:

“Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Sarah Palin?”
2/4-8/10            37%Fav      55%Unfav     8%Unsure
11/12-15/09      43%Fav      52%Unfav     5%Unsure
7/15-18/09        40%Fav      53%Unfav     7%Unsure
9/27-29/08        51%Fav      40%Unfav     9%Unsure

In fact, her image is so damaged that a majority of her own party find her not qualified to serve as President:

“Regardless of whether or not you’d vote for her, do you think Palin is or is not qualified to serve as president?”

26% - Qualified
71% - Not
4% - Unsure

Democrats 6% Qualified   91% Not    3% Unsure
Independents   29%     67%      4%
Republicans      46%     52%      2%

Now, conservative columnist George Will begins to publicly nail the coffin lid shut with this piece:

Sarah Palin and the mutual loathing society

By George F. Will
Thursday, February 18, 2010; A17

The Republican presidential nominee, an Arizona senator, was a maverick, which was part of his charm. He spoke and acted impulsively, which was part of his problem. Voters thought his entertaining dimensions might be incompatible with presidential responsibilities. For example, he selected a running mate most Americans had never heard of and who had negligible experience pertinent to the presidency. This was 1964.

Barry Goldwater, whose seat John McCain occupies, chose to run with Bill Miller, a congressman from Lockport, N.Y., near Buffalo. Miller, Goldwater cheerfully explained, annoyed Lyndon Johnson. After the Goldwater-Miller ticket lost 44 states, Miller retired to Lockport, where he practiced law and lived in dignified anonymity until his death in 1983. Although he had served as an assistant prosecutor of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg and spent seven terms in Congress, no one suggested he should be considered for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination.

Yet Sarah Palin, who with 17 months remaining in her single term as Alaska’s governor quit the only serious office she has ever held, is obsessively discussed as a possible candidate in 2012. Why? She is not going to be president and will not be the Republican nominee unless the party wants to lose at least 44 states.

Conservatives, who rightly respect markets as generally reliable gauges of consumer preferences, should notice that the political market is speaking clearly: The more attention Palin receives, the fewer Americans consider her presidential timber. The latest Post-ABC News poll shows that 71 percent of Americans — including 52 percent of Republicans — think she is not qualified to be president.

This is not her fault. She is what she is, and what she is merits no disdain. She is feisty and public-spirited, and millions of people vibrate like tuning forks to her rhetoric. When she was suddenly forced to take a walk on the highest wire in America’s political circus, she showed grit.

She also showed that grit is no substitute for seasoning. She has been subjected to such irrational vituperation — loathing largely born of snobbery — that she can be forgiven for seeking the balm of adulation from friendly audiences.

America, its luck exhausted, at last has a president from the academic culture, that grating blend of knowingness and unrealism. But the reaction against this must somewhat please him. That reaction is populism, a celebration of intellectual ordinariness. This is not a stance that will strengthen the Republican Party, which recently has become ruinously weak among highly educated whites. Besides, full-throated populism has not won a national election in 178 years, since Andrew Jackson was reelected in 1832.

After William Jennings Bryan’s defeat in 1908, his third as the Democrats’ presidential nominee, this prototypical populist said he felt like the man who, thrown out of a bar for a third time, dusted himself off and said, “I’m beginning to think those fellows don’t want me in there.” In 1992, Ross Perot, an only-in-America phenomenon — a billionaire populist — won 19 percent of the popular vote. But because of the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes, he won none of those. In 1976, Jimmy Carter — peanut farmer; carried his own suitcase, imagine that — somewhat tapped America’s durable but shallow reservoir of populism. By 1980, ordinariness in high office had lost its allure.

In 1968, George Wallace, promising to toss the briefcases of pointy-headed intellectuals into the Potomac, won 46 electoral votes with 13.5 percent of the popular vote. He had the populist’s trifecta — a vivid personality, a regional base and a burning issue. Actually, he had three such issues — backlash against the civil rights revolution, social disintegration (urban riots, rising crime) and resentment of the progressive projects of Great Society social engineers (e.g., forced busing of other people’s children).

Populism has had as many incarnations as it has had provocations, but its constant ingredient has been resentment, and hence whininess. Populism does not wax in tranquil times; it is a cathartic response to serious problems. But it always wanes because it never seems serious as a solution.

Political nature abhors a vacuum, which is what often exists for a year or two in a party after it loses a presidential election. But today’s saturation journalism, mesmerized by presidential politics and ravenous for material, requires a steady stream of political novelties. In that role, Palin is united with the media in a relationship of mutual loathing. This is not her fault. But neither is it her validation.

While Palin may not be politically “dead,” her hopes of being viewed as a viable candidate for President are quickly fading away as she engages on extremely divisive issues and continues to makes outlandish statements.  She will certainly continue to be seen as a leader to some in the Republican party, but those desiring to see the Republicans put up a competitive opponent to Obama in 2012 can sleep a little better knowing that Palin’s chances are slipping away.

New data out indicates that voters are beginning to sour on Obama as the generic Republican candidate is in a statistical tie with the President on a generic ballot.

The problem is not an issue with the Democratic base (although many of the wave voters will not turn out again), but Independents are sorry that the change they voted for was not necessarily the change they wanted:

Most Democratic voters and Republican voters plan to support their own party’s candidate for president in the 2012 election. Independents currently show a greater preference for the Republican candidate than for Obama, by 45% to 31%, though about one in four do not have an opinion.

Losing Independents by this margin during mid-terms is an indication of impeding losses by Democrats - especially the Republican-leaning seat they’ve picked up over the past two election cycles.

Will Republicans win enough seats to win back the house?  I’m not sure yet, but we will certainly win enough to make a stand on the rest of Obama’s legislation.  Regardless, Obama’s political strength is eroding.  Not just in this survey, but he was unable to motivate “wave” voters to turn out in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia.

This is going to be a tough cycle for Democrats.

Last night’s special election in Massachusetts was a huge win for Scott Brown and Republicans and we have a lot to learn from the election about the way that the winning coalition is shifting and how we can tap into populist sentiment nationwide.

While fully understanding what happened and how we can use the lessons from Massachusetts around the country will take time, here are five lessons from Massachusetts in the form of more-or-less famous quotes.

1) “Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action.”

Since the 2008 election, Republican candidates are three-for-three in major statewide elections and all three came in states that Obama won.

The political winds are clearly blowing our way, but we can improve our chances of winning big in 2010 by understanding what our victories in Virginia, New Jersey and now Massachusetts have in common.

2) “Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.”

Much has been made of Obama’s “top and bottom” 2008 coalition.

• Obama won big with voters with annual household incomes under $50,000 and also took 52% of the vote among those with household incomes over $200,000.

But, middle class voters were critical for Obama, as well.

• He won 51% to 48% among voters with household incomes of $75,000 to $100,000.

Frustration with a Democratic agenda that seems to favor the very rich and the poor has driven a wedge through the middle of the Obama coalition.

• Handouts to Wall Street and car company executives have fueled middle class anger at Democrats.
• The decision to sacrifice cost control for a focus on access and universal coverage in the health care plan has furthered middle class disenchantment.

Republican candidates with a populist message have shown the way to winning back the middle-class vote.

• Bob McDonnell won across the board in Virginia, but his biggest margins came from voters with household incomes of $50,000 to $100,000
• In Massachusetts, election night polling showed Scott Brown winning every income group from $40,000 to $100,000 and winning blue collar strongholds like Lowell and Quincy.

3) The conventional wisdom that ‘negative campaigning works’ is “true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense.”

In the final days of the campaign, Martha Coakley went negative and tried to paint Scott Brown as everything from an arch-conservative to a Wall Street elitist.

• None of these attacks worked.

We hear a lot in the campaign world about “driving up opponent negatives” and “inverting their image” but that kind of thinking is too simple and leads to failure.

“White hats versus black hats” is still one of the strongest narratives available to a campaign, but it takes more than just telling voters why the other side is bad.  We have to tell them why our candidates are the “white hats.”

• Scott Brown did this effectively by tapping into the populist middle-class sentiment and then branding Coakley and the Democrats as elitist, out of touch, and pursuing dangerous policies.

4) “Campaigns matter.”

Scott Brown and his campaign understood the mood of the electorate, developed a winning narrative, and got their message to voters.  That’s how you win campaigns.

• Much has been made of Brown’s “everyman” image.
• What he understood and what we need to understand is that the Republican constituency today is populist, middle class, and “everyman.”

If a well-run campaign with the right narrative, energy, and execution can win in deep-blue Massachusetts then we can win anywhere.

5) “Don’t pull your arm of socket trying to pat yourself on the back.”

Last night was a huge win for Scott Brown and should motivate every Republican around the country to redouble our efforts to win big in November.

• But, last night also makes us one-for-five in special elections during this election cycle.

Republicans should be confident and emboldened, but we should also learn one from the Coakley campaign and not take anything for granted.

According to a new nationwide ABC News/Washington Post survey of 1,083 adults taken from January 12-15, 2010, the troubling economy and a Democrat-Congress seemingly intent on ignoring the concerns of the American people is taking its toll.

According to the survey, 52% of respondents disapproved of the way Obama is handling health care, while 44% approved.  Nine months ago, 57% of respondents favored the president’s job on health care while just 29% disapproved.

Concerning the federal budget deficit, the response should be even more troubling for the president: 38% of respondents approved of Obama’s job on the deficit while 56% disapproved.

These numbers are not altogether surprising.  In the year since Obama took office, the national debt has skyrocketed from $10.6 Trillion to more than $12.3 Trillion – and increase of more than 16% in just twelve months.  Moreover, some experts are predicting the need for Congress to approve another increase of up to $2 Trillion more in the federal debt ceiling in order for the government to continue spending as planned (an in an election year, no less).

Interested readers may CLICK HERE for more complete results of the ABC News/Washington Post survey.

http://pollingreport.com/obama_ad.htm

I wrote in late August that the changing political environment meant good news for Republicans, but not necessarily good news for Republican incumbents.  In fact, last Tuesday’s election indicates that incumbents of both parties should be fearful of losing their jobs.

A recent article in the Politico highlights my concern:

Of all the numbers swirling around this week Capitol Hill this week – health care whip counts, CBO estimates, winning and losing margins in Virginia, New York and New Jersey – one stands out from the rest: 10.2 percent.

That’s the national unemployment rate. And lawmakers from both parties know that, if it doesn’t go down dramatically before next November, they could be adding to it themselves.

“I think anytime unemployment is high and people are concerned about their jobs, the economy, incumbents on both sides of the aisle need to be concerned,â€� Republican Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker said Friday. “What people care most about is food, clothing and shelter. Period. …. When food, clothing and shelter are sort of impacted, their base lives are impacted, it definitely sours the public as it should. Usually the party in power takes the brunt of that, but it affects all incumbents.”

In August, I predicted that growing angst regarding government spending, and the ever growing unemployment number would put many incumbents at risk.  I agree with Senator Corker - when a voter is facing unemployment yielding an inability to afford the essentials, then they are angry at whomever is in power for not “fixing” the problem.  In fact, the loses that Democrats face in 2010 are largely their fault for pushing the stimulus as the be-all-fix-all solution.  Clearly it was not.

Democrats aren’t the only ones at risk.  There are several dozen Republicans that voted for the Bush stimulus.  This makes it difficult to take a stand against government intervention.

Gallup makes an interesting analysis available this morning that isn’t really good news for Democrats or Republicans.  Here are their top points:

1. Public Opinion on Health Care Reform is Divided, Yet Stable (My interpretation: it’s a faceoff.  The Dems want reform, but Republicans and right-leaning Independents do not.)
2. Americans Do Not have a Strong Sense of Urgency about Passing Health Care Reform. (My interpretation: this is a win for the Republicans because there is little pressing the Dems in Congress to move, other than their own headlines.)
3. Self Interest is Only Part of the Story (My Interpretation: a win for the Dems here, because half of Americans support reform, even though less than half believe the reform can positively effect them personally.)
4. Specific Elements of Reform have Strong Appeal; Some Do Not (My interpretation: a win-win for both Dems and Republicans because there are elements that both use to rally the troops for and against.)
5. Obama holds the Upperhand (My interpretation: obviously, a win for Obama.  Not really for Congressional Dems who are slated to lose over a dozen seats next November.  Obama has yet to prove that he can be a help politically - see Virigina Governor’s race!)

Anyway, take a look at their numbers and make your own call.  The bottomline here: there are no winners.

Democrats are playing a dangerous game in an attempt to fully fund their health care proposal.  One of the ideas includes cutting Medicare benefits to help offset the new health care program costs.

From the Politico:

The top Senate Republican says Democratic cuts to Medicare will cost them in the 2010 elections, warning that the hundreds of billions in reductions to the senior citizen health program is “Orwellian.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Senate minority leader, criticized Democrats for insisting that a half-trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare as part of the health care overhaul, well, aren’t exactly cuts to Medicare.

“They’re taking a half trillion dollars out of Medicare not to make it more sustainable, but to start a new federal program for a whole new set of citizens. This is a huge issue,â€� McConnell said.

Then came McConnell’s warning.

“They ought not to do it, but if they do do it, it’ll be the biggest issue in the 2010 elections,â€� he said.

McConnell is right.  Democrats are not thinking about their future, or the impact to those depending on Medicare.

Our recently released research on how voters view health care indicates that seniors are already opposed to Obama’s health care proposal:

18-34: 28% support - 57% oppose
35-44: 44% support - 46% oppose
45-54: 46% support - 44% oppose
55-64: 44% support - 48% oppose
65+:    37% support - 52% oppose

As you can see, the oldest voters are among the most unfavorable of the plan.  I’m sure that Democrats may reconsider their plan to cut Medicare as we get closer to 2010 as they realize that voters 55 and older represent nearly 45% of the likely voter population.  It’s generally best not to make these people mad.