The Hitch-hiker’s Guide to Healthcare “Reform” (and 2010)

posted at 3:57 pm on July 24, 2009 by Karl

DON’T PANIC! is the message Nate Silver is delivering to his left-leaning readership today. Silver thinks that if Congress goes on its August recess without taking action on healthcare, it might help the Democrats. That is pretty much the opposite of what Silver was writing on July 13th, so he has some ‘splainin’ to do.

His prior warning that Democrats needed to act quickly was based on the overall economic picture, particularly the general expectation that the US will continue to have high unenployment well into next year. Now, Silver claims that the pendulum of the press is likely to swing back a bit over the next month — and that a stock market spurt, or a good GDP or unemployment report at the end of July might boost the odds for Congressional action.

To put it mildly, that is some pretty weak beer. Pres. Obama’s poll numbers are most likely tied to unemployment and personal income statistics. Current economic forecasts call not only for rising unemployment, but also wage deflation. The administration is delaying its budget forecast because it is hoping for better numbers, but it is not expecting them. In such an environment, good media coverage seems doubtful — and would be doubted.

The August recess is likely to be another month of failed pro-Obamacare rallies. The usual suspects — MoveOn, SEIU, etc. — are already getting outnumbered by counter-demonstrators in Dallas, North Carolina, Long Island, NY, and Orlando, to name a few. It will be another month of laughing at Congressmen claiming that Obamacare will save money. The only difference will be that there are more opportunities during a month-long recess.

There is good reason for Silver to eschew his normal statistical analysis of political problems, as Sean Trende explains:

The average midterm loss for a President’s party since World War II has been 10.5% of its seats. But the economy isn’t looking too hale right now; the average loss for a President’s party when real disposable income rises by less than 2% is 13%. The average loss for a President’s party when the President’s approval is at or below 50% is 16%. And if you look at real disposable income increases of less than 2% and a Presidential approval of less than 50% — at the very least a possible scenario for 2010 – you end up with a murderer’s row of midterm elections: 1946, 1974, 1982, 1994, 2006.

The four scenarios described above would translate to losses of 27, 33, 41, and 49 seats, respectively for the Democrats. The latter two would hand control of the House to Republicans, while the former would deprive the Democrats of working control of the House. And remember, these are just averages. Some results in each category are lower, but some are higher.

In other words, Obama realizes that the odds are not likely going to improve for the implementation of an aggressively liberal agenda…

Silver hinted at this less than two weeks ago; no wonder he would like to forget it now. Talks between House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and Blue Dog Democrats — who Silver knows can be as big an obstacle to Obamacare as the Senate — have broken down. The schism must be pretty bad, as Waxman is now threatening to let healthcare legislation bypass his committee and go straight to the floor, though Democratic critics of the bill have warned that the bill doesn’t have enough votes to pass on the floor, and say an end-run around the committee would galvanize opposition among centrists. Indeed, the moderates likely do not want to be rushed into voting for soething more left-wing than whatever the Senate approves.

Nate Silver is telling his readers not to panic; the House Democratic leadership must not be reading Nate Silver.

Blowback