« Nineteenth Nervous Breakdown
Larry Sabato: Republicans Can Reduce Democratic Senate Majority to 52 Seats »
The Senate’s 62-Vote Supermajority
That’s right. Not 59. Not 60. But 62.
Sen. Susan Collins has signaled a willingness to support a revised health-care bill that focuses on widely shared goals for reform. Yes, that probably means a smaller, less ambitious bill. But if Collins is willing to back such a bill, her Maine counterpart, Sen. Olympia Snowe, probably would be, too.
And as multiple sources have now pointed out — including Jazz Shaw and Nate Silver — Senator-elect Scott Brown might just have the political inclination to support a re-focused measure. (Remember, he has to run again in 2012, and despite Tuesday’s vote, Massachusetts is still a deep-blue state.)
So, in summary: 57 Senate Democrats + 2 Democrat-caucusing Senate Independents + 3 Senate Republicans = 62 (potential) Senate votes for a re-focused/limited measure.
Granted, the math is easier than the actual policy, but such challenges notwithstanding, I think this scenario could be far more realistic than some might want to admit.
Of course, if a bill is re-focused/limited, why not expect broader support? Why wouldn’t more Republicans jump on board? Because, I fear, many of them are still more interested in denying the President victories than they are in constructive governing. I hope they prove me wrong.
10 Responses to “The Senate’s 62-Vote Supermajority”
To be clear, Collins said that she wants to “start from scratch”, echoing what many Republicans have been saying for a while, so I don't see any significant shift happening.
Yes, I would imagine there are a few (I would think/hope more than a few) Republicans who would be willing to work with Democrats on a new compromise bill. I hope the Democrats do go this route, but I'm not holding my breath.
Our sources indicate there is no chance Snowe or Collins will change their minds and support the current bill, unless a new, smaller bill written from scratch emerges and gains broad bipartisan support.
In bigger news that the Massachusetts election, corporations can now give unlimited campaign contributions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…
Next, I guess they'll be able to run for office.
“Don't blame me, I voted for Microsoft.”
Nonsense. Start from scratch, make it a completely Republican bill that is reform in name only and of course you'll get Republicans to vote for it. If it actually accomplished anything we need to improve health care in this country you'd still have a lockstep Republican vote against it.
Unbelievable!!!
Time to write a law that forces all congress-critters to wear the corporate logos (size of logos to be proportionate to the size of their contributions) of their sponsors whenever they are on the floor of House & Senate…
from MSNBC -
Don't tell me we're agreeing again!
Scary… isn't it?
Good idea maybe they could borrow from what they are doing in sports. Instead of the Kennedy Senatorial Seat we might have the the ExxonMobil Senatorial Seat.
As long as they have to wear the Corporate logo at all official functions…
Logo must be visible to the naked eye from 50 feet away