Because they are spineless idiots whose world view is determined by Fox News.

(Apologies to Franken.)

Answer 1. A good percentage of the Democrats actually prefer the Republican agenda.
Answer 2: The remainder are useless cowards.

Because they're corrupt? That they lose the Daschele/Tauzin option if they vote the wrong way? Maybe, you know, they are not spineless at all, just using the GOP bloc for cover so they can maintain their future employment opportunities.

I think also you have to consider the health care bill itself. It's unpopular not because it reforms health care, but because it doesn't do what people who want to reform health care want it to do. This is one of those backwards bills: much of the good stuff was compromised in order to curry favor with the lobbyists and Republicans, neither which is going to support it in the end regardless. So the real question in voters' minds is why move forward with something that nobody wants?

Since the same is going to be true of any Democratic bill on any topic in the Senate, why not just write *good* bills and use them both to rally the base and to beat on the GOP at election time?

I would guess that at least 2/5ths of that 50% (or 20% of the total) are opposed to the current HCR bill on progressive grounds. If they would pass a P.O. and other progressive measures through reconciliation, they would claim most of that 20% and only lose a very small fraction of the 39% supporting the current bill.

With proper framing, you could achieve a minimum of 55-60% support for real HCR.

Second that, Christopher. There are many of us on the left who think (surprise!) that reining in the astronomical cost of health care is (a) more important than covering everyone, (b) that an individual mandate without a public/nonprofit option is a license for insurance companies to steal and political suicide for democrats and (c) that taxing existing policies is also political suicide for Democrats and won't do a damn thing to lower health care costs. Employers made opt for cheaper plans but insurance companies will hike their costs through the roof anyway (see Anthem). Establishing a public option and eliminating the anti-trust exemption would go a long way toward proving that Democrats aren't owned and operated by the same corporations as Republicans -- but I'm afraid we won't see that happen, for the obvious reason.

Christopher: "So the real question in voters' minds is why move forward with something that nobody wants?"

Even with all of the problematic parts of HCR, setting up the exchanges, defining minimum insurance coverage, and the acknowledgement that government has a responsibility to help everybody get access to affordable health care make the bill worth passing.

Fixing some of the revenue issues through reconciliation would be a great way to improve the bill to make it more palatable.

We hear how 50% are against this bill, but a substantial part of that 50% are the Democrats or Democrat-leaners who want it to do more -- and it's the bill exactly as it stands now. Will 50% be against this bill when combined with the amendments a majority of Senators and Representatives said they were for? With the comprehensive package, especially if it includes an optional Federal plan that people can choose or not choose to buy as they wish -- which had 80% support when phrased correctly -- opposition will be cut in half. Half of that reduction will come from opponents leaning center-right who actually have little idea what the bill does. The other half will come from liberals who will be more satisfied with the combined product.

Once this "summit" is done, and Obama has performed his bipartisanship due diligence (as if he hasn't 10 times over already), it will be time for immediate action. Dithering further is suicide.

I got a call from the DNC looking for money yesterday. I cut the woman off as soon as she identified herself. I told her there was no way I would give another cent to the party until they got their act together on HCR.

Democrats won in 2008 largely because they weren't Republicans. But that's not enough to sustain a majority or keep their base motivated. They have to be able to point to successes and prove they can govern.

More importantly they need to prove to their base and the middle that they can actually stand and FIGHT. Because while the public as a whole may not like Republican polies they do know that Republicans will fight to get them passed. That perception of toughness gets them a lot of votes even from people who don't believe in what the Republicans fight for. Better to support a fighter than a coward.

If Democrats spend 2010 cowering in their offices not passing any significant legislation then quite honestly they deserve to lose and lose big.

Unfortunately the rest of the country loses with them.

There are two fundamental truths about the American electorate that Republicans understand much, much better than Democrats. (1) They need things to be simple, and to be communicated simply (see Contract With America); (2) they hate weakness - in particular, they hate to see "weakness" in their government. Add to that what Bill Clinton's campaign taught us -- "Its the Economy, Stupid" -- and what we see in the Tea Party support -- that people are mad at the Government-Corporate Axis and distrust incumbents right now.

From this short list of premises, Zeitgeist's prescription for how to salvage the 2010 elections, but for it to work the Dems have to get better at messaging and have to be at least minimally disciplined and work together.

Announce that "politicians" who say they'll do everything are pandering; we'll do just 4 legislative things between now and the election and we'll do those 4 well, and while Republicans are welcome to roll up their sleeves and help, we will not let obstructionist Republicans stop us from helping make life better for Americans.

(1) Pass health care reform -- Hosue passes the Senate bill, and clean-ups are made via reconciliation. Loudly trumpet both the virtues of the bill and "we heard you, this clean-up bill shows that the days of things like the Husker Handout are over."

(2) Pass a jobs bill -- not the mamby-pamby minimalist thing Reid is now pushing, but a real jobs bill. Tax credits for job creation, sure, but also a second round of infrastructure spending, retraining and outplacement funding, and benefits extension.

(3) Pass banking/Wall Street reform. This polls extremely well, and has the Republicans in a tough spot. Make them cast that vote - after Labor Day when the public is in election mode. Praise Tea Partiers on this issue - not because they'll ever support us, but to undermine their enthusiam and to look reasonable to independents.

(4) Pass legislation to counteract as much as possible Citizens United. Again, this polls extremely well and Republicans are on the wrong side of this issue.

In the meantime Obama should quickly eliminate DADT; an easy way to reanimate the base - but Obama needs to do it quickly before it is so obvious he gets no credit for it.

Finally, the Dems need to do what seems to elude them and create a few thematic narratives. The only time they have been somewhat decent at it was the 2006 "culture of corruption," which they need to reprise as a way to tie together all of the Republican hypocrisy and duplicity, and suggest it is in the service of the Big Establishment Corporations who benefit from Citizens United and from killing Wall Street reform.

Tim Kaine can contact Steve Benen to get the info on where to send the check for my consulting fees.

I agree with almost everything you say, but covering everyone, or at least coming as close as possible, is the single most critical component right now. It is the reassurance to those clinging to jobs that they will be able to get insurance that is necessary for restoring the confidence that is the underpinning for a strong economy.

It's incredible how Democrats, including the mighty White House communicators, have been unable to articulate the connection between the shredding of the safety net and the long-term, fundamental destruction of jobs. Even when the unemployment rate dropped to 4.4% under Bush in late 2006, the consumer sentiment (UMich) or consumer confidence (Conf Board) indices never came close to what they were at their peak in 2000 or even in 1998 when the unemployment rates were also in the mid-4s.

Why? Why did Chris Matthews show such astonishment at the bad mood of Americans despite that apparent low unemployment rate? Because Americans were way ahead of the economists, especially conservative economists. The ongoing destruction of the safety net is the best explanation for such a mood I can find. Without confidence in the future, you cannot have a strong economy, period. Having everyone covered -- or at least everyone that needs to be covered -- is an essential building block for that confidence.

Having everyone covered will also reduce costs in many ways, not the least from the fact that current provider-level costs reflect an enormous billing and collections infrastructure that will be less necessary when providers know from the outset of treatment who will be paying them and when.

The big question is, will even Democratic voters see the passing of healthcare reform as a good thing, as an historic achievement?

So much misinformation about the bill has come not only from conservatives (that goes without saying), but also, most harmfully, from "the left." And the nature of the misinformation from the left borders on a near-hysteria that millions will be crushed by "death by corporate enslavement" if the bill passes.

It seems to me that an inexplicable oversight on the part of the WH and Congressional communications teams was in omitting a streamlined way for voters to understand exactly how the bill would help them in their individual circumstances once it was passed. For instance, I looked up both the House and Senate bills online, did the numbers for myself, and came up with a very affordable cost I could pay for insurance coverage with the help of the Affordability Credit in the House bill, or with the subsidies provided in the Senate bill. But there was no way to check to see if I was taking the correct approach to figuring my costs. Many in the blogosphere have been relying on the HCR calculator at Kaiser Foundation, and in doing so, have been scaring the bejeesus out of themselves and others with their results. The Kaiser calculator seems to have a serious flaw because it calculates eligibility for the affordability credit based on one's age, when the bills themselves base it on income and citizenship status only, not age (as far as I can tell.)

To be fair, Congress did a great job in posting the bills online well in advance of teh voting on them, and the many government-generated summaries and analyses were also excellent. But, let's face it, if you were to walk out on the street and look to the left and right of you, you probably could not find one person who could tell you what was in the bill or how it would help them, because there was no simple way for people to run the numbers for themselves, and because the most hysterical elements on both sides of the spectrum were allowed for many months, without correction, to control the narrative on the bills.

So, back to my original question, when HCR passes, I have a feeling Democratic voters will not know whether to celebrate it as an achievement or not. And something on the part of Democratic leadership has to be done about that.

It is also worth looking at where the different kinds of voters live, in which states and congressional districts. It does not matter how much the people in Alabama dislike Barney Frank, or for what reasons. They don't get to vote for him. Focus, focus.

I not only live in a state that elected a first term Blue Dog Congressman in '08, but I also attend the county Democratic party monthly meetings. Our BD regularly votes against HCR and various stimulus legislation. What I have observed during the last months is that none of the Democratic stalwarts are planning to vote for our BD this fall. And in talking to the Republicans and Independents in our town, none of them are going to vote for him either. It is my observation that Blue Dogs by abandoning Obama are committing political suicide. Democrats here are dispirited by the the lack of HCR and other demonstrable reforms so unless the House passes the Senate health care bill and sends it the the WH, November 2010 is going to be a tragic month.

It seems to me that 44% of the swing voters oppose HRC, but that doesn't mean HRC would be a deal breaker. The 42% that support it would probably be more solidly Dem if they did. (unless it's awful, which I suspect it might be, at first.) They should go for it.

More info:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_217.pdf

Definitely Democratic ........... 34%
Consider Democratic ........... 24%
Definitely not Democratic ...... 37%
Not Sure....................... 5%

Health Care

Support
Definitely Democratic 79%
Consider Democratic 42%
Definitely not Democratic 1%
Not Sure 36%

Oppose
Definitely Democratic 7%
Consider Democratic 44%
Definitely not Democratic 94%
Not Sure 49%

No Opinion
Definitely Democratic 13%
Consider Democratic 15%
Definitely not Democratic 5%
Not Sure 15%

I am a single payer supporter, and when I attended the OFA launch for Obama's health care plan almost 90% of those attending were for some form of single payer. About a year ago or so....

The three people running the meeting asked us all to sign a form saying we supported Obama's health care plan, and some did. But most asked just what Obama's health care plan actually was going to be.

Uh oh, even the meeting's leaders couldn't answer that. One of them went to the whiteboard and tried to show that if we started with a strong public option (What exactly would that be, we asked, and got no answer other than it was a starting point for negotiations!), then the actual bill which could pass the Senate would be more liberal, progressive, liberal-ish than it would be otherwise.

About half said they didn't sign petitions which were vague, so many did not stay to sign.

There were two Big Health Industry reps at the meeting, btw (two of them: one was good cop, the other bad cop!) who tried to persuade the attendees that they fully supported Obama's plan (whatever it was) and we shouldn't believe all those lies being told about the high profits health insurers were making. Why, it seems they barely make any profit at all! They were laughed out of the room.

So, to the point: We need Medicare for All...with a robust private option.

Single payer can be accomplished in different ways, but we do have an infrastructure in place for Medicare which would easily accommodate the general population. After all, we have computers, and LBJ didn't have the kind of technology we have not and he got Medicare implemented in less than a year.

The private option is for those consumers who feel a duty to keep private for-profit insurance companies fat and happy. Or who can afford some kind of plan for elective surgeries such as cosmetic surgery.

I fear Obama is too much of a Corporate Dem to dare to fight for any real health CARE plan that would effectively provide comprehensive CARE and be affordable to both the people and the nation. I do give Obama credit for saying, when he's speaking carefully, that his plan is really health insurance reform. Alas.

He might also admit that it is also a Big Health Insurance Parasites' Profit Protection Plan (BHIP-PPP).