Wow. I can't believe how much denial I am reading here. You guys sound as clueless as the Republicans did leading up to 2006.
How much certainty do you advise we put on polls 14 months before an election before we're not in "denial"?
I'm reading lots of people expressing concern about the size of Dem losses, but making reasoned arguments as to how things will play out. I understand if you guys are looking for hope; I've been there too. I think it's too much to expect others to feel bad for not sharing certainty that your hopes are the predetermined path for the future.
The real problem is, the Democrats have to give a rather long winded explaination (because its a complex situation) as to why they had to use reconciliation...the Republicans need only launch attacks, probably successful ones, based on a very simple message (however misleading)...that the Democrats rammed government health care down the country's throat.
Lief makes good points as to why the Democrats did it, but deep down you guys probably will admit that like 8 or 9 times out of 10, the dumb/simple message trumps the nuanced/complex/long winded truthful message.
I never denied anywhere on this thread that reconciliation would hurt, and that Democrats would lose the media war over it. But Democrats have to chose their poison. They can chose to fail on healthcare which would motivate conservatives and depress democratic turnout, or they can push it through which would piss off conservatives but motivate democrats. The latter is a much better option, even if it pisses off some independents.
I also think that because most of us on here care about policy we assume other people do as well. Most independents care about effectiveness, and therefore failing to pass healthcare is worse than passing a bill in a partisan manner.
Furthermore, i don't buy this "fictional" constituency for bipartisanship. It exists, but rarely extends beyond David Broder's dinner guests. Most voters do not want bipartisanship. Especially after the last few years.
