The Massachusetts Senate seat has been in Democratic hands since 1953. But on Jan. 19, Republican Scott Brown was chosen over Democrat candidate Martha Coakley, thrusting the national health reform movement into turmoil.
The winner of the Massachusetts Senate seat holds the critical 60th vote necessary to make or break the health reform legislation – and the rest of President Obama's agenda. With Brown in the position, Republicans could block the effort with filibusters – and throughout his campaign, Brown made it clear that he did not plan to support the national health legislation. (Incidentally, Brown did vote in favor of Massachusetts' health reform, on which the national model is largely based, in 2005.)
Despite the election, Democrats haven't given up hope. There are several political and procedural maneuvers they could make to save their ship. One idea – certainly considered the most shameless by political analysts – is to simply burn the midnight oil and pass the legislation before Brown takes his seat, which should happen in about two weeks. Although there is precedent for such a move, many Democrats (including the president himself) have rejected the idea.
Another, more popular, alternative is for the House to pass the Senate version as it stands, rather than negotiate a new compromise bill. Then, the final bill could be amended slightly later on through a budget reconciliation, which cannot be filibustered, and therefore requires only 50 votes in the Senate – making Brown's vote meaningless.
The problem with this, of course, is that too many liberals dislike the Senate plan. And with elections coming up this fall, the more moderate Democrats worry about the political implications of voting for an unpopular plan.
