Nate Silver is surprised that the public option isn’t dead. He didn’t anticipate this:
bq. The first surprise is that Reid is showing some backbone…
bq. The third surprise is the way that Democrats regrouped after the turmoil of August…
bq. The fourth surprise, less important than the first three, is that the usually very footsure insurance lobby undermined its credibility by putting out the wrong study at the wrong time, giving a gift to Democrats by making it easier for centrist Senators to distance themselves from them.
Jon Bernstein is not surprised:
bq. The best explanation is all of this has nothing to do with backbone; it has to do with numbers. In 2002, Democrats were in the minority, and didn’t have the votes to win on Iraq. In 2007, Democrats had majorities in Congress…but not the White House, and so they had only limited ability to affect policy. In early 2009, Democrats picked up the White House and reached 58 seats in the Senate, leaving them in pretty good shape but still vulnerable to unified Republican filibusters.
bq. And now the Democrats have reached 60 votes in the Senate, and it has consequences. That’s not about will, determination, or spine; it’s about numbers. To the extent that Democrats have 60 votes but not 60 liberal votes, the ability to do what liberals want will be compromised, but again it’s the numbers (both in terms of party and in terms of preferences of Senators) that really matters. Those sorts of explanations aren’t, perhaps, as dramatic, but they do have the virtue of being more accurate.
I am with Jon. Too many commentators seem to think that political outcomes depend mostly on the traits of political leaders. Is Harry Reid tough enough, etc. But policy outcomes depends a lot more on power, and that comes from having the right number of votes, not having the right attitude.