It has been a topic much discussed in Townhall. Will Obama and the Democrat leadership manage to push through some sort of health care reform, or will the 2010 elections and the reelection hopes of house members (and some senators) keep the bill from passing?

I have heard many arguments, and there is merit to a number of them, but as I stated in "Desperate Media" and "How to Tell They Lost on Health Care Reform", as well as in my older posts from "Easy to Explain" to  "Obama Forgets All He Learned", I think the chances are slim.

Now, if the Democrats were a unified party, acting in lockstep it would be a certain victory, but fortunately political parties do not work that way. Not only does each individual representative have his own interests, but the party itself has many segments, many factions, which also have conflicting interests. And those conflict make it unlikely the party leadership will be able to force through their plans the way they would like. (Not to mention that the party itself has mechanisms for challenging the leadership, making too much discontent politically risky.)

Just to offer one example, it has become clear that many unions are not happy with some of the parts of the Baucus bill, as they would reduce the massive health benefits enjoyed by unions. That means that those depending on unions for secure seats might be tempted to join the blue dogs in opposition, provided the bill is not amended. Even those who do not rely on union votes, but who receive large union donations might be less than enthusiastic.

Another group that might be troublesome are retirees. The AARP has signed on to the current reform plans (despite past opposition to much less onerous changes, such as the nominal premium for catastrophic coverage -- see "AARP Proves They Are Partisan Hacks and other Thoughts on Health Care Reform" and "Unusual Endorsement"), but that does not mean their constituents have. Yes, AARP's support may mean politicians can continue to count on AARP money, but they may not be able to rely on retirees' votes. So politicians with large elderly populations, a group with higher than average turnout at election times, may have second thoughts before signing on as well.

And then there are individual representative who may have won in 2006 only thanks to a tactical run to the right, combined with anti-Bush sentiment or a spendthrift or liberal Republican opponent.They might be pressured by the party to vote with Pelosi and Reid, they may be offered bribes, such as civil posts or lobbying positions should they lose their seats, but odds are good most will act in their own self-interest first. After all, Pelosi will not be there forever, so many will likely think it better to ride out a few years of a disgruntled speaker than to lose their seat. Anyway, next time Pelosi needs their vote, she will get over past snubs pretty quickly, so the cost of following their own interests is low. And, in the worst case, if Pelosi holds a grudge too long, the blue dogs, union representatives and others who voted against the bill can rise up and unseat Pelosi.After all, a speaker's seat is not a sinecure, and there is always a fairly large minority hoping to replace one speaker with another more friendly one.

Nor does the president have much to offer. He won the presidency, and that usually means that he can offer endorsements to help in midterm elections. But Obama did not win with traditional support. Those who put him in office, minorities and young voters, traditionally turn out in very low numbers, and without Obama on the ticket are likely to do so again in 2010.  Not to mention the precipitous drop he has experienced in the polls, which calls into question his ability to deliver even the small number of voters he might have in 2010. Nor do those endorsing health care reform, basically the same people who put Obama in office, promise much more support. So signing on to the Obama position does not offer much of a payoff.

And so, though conditions may change in the next few months, right now it seems the most likely outcome is that the bill will either face defeat, or else endure continual postponement until the 2010 elections pass. The self interest of too many Democrats suggests either abstaining or opposing the current bills. The public support just is not there, and those facing reelection cannot afford to go out on a limb for an unpopular bill.

Of course things always change, and people can behave in unpredictable ways, but right now I do not see any hope for the current health care bills.Even without considering the Republican opposition, there are serious problems within the ranks of the Democrats. When you add in the Republicans it just seems very unlikely it will survive all the way to a house vote.

POSTSCRIPT

I am surprised I forgot it when initially writing this post, but the most positive sign, positive for those opposed to the bill, is that we have the time to look for signs. Unlike the rapid pace at which his previous initiatives have been rammed through congress, this bill has taken quite a bit of time. If Obama thought he had the votes, we would not have the time to discuss all these questions. The tentative pace with which the bill has been introduced is probably the single most clear sign that Obama does not think he has the support he needs.