The Fix

After months of wrangling, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed President Barack Obama's health care plan by a 60-39 vote this morning.

The vote was along strict partisan lines. Summing up the bill's impact, the Post's Shailagh Murray wrote this morning:

For the first time, most Americans would be required to obtain health insurance, either through their employer or via new, government-regulated exchanges. Those who can't afford insurance plans would receive federal subsidies. And Medicaid would be vastly expanded to reach millions of low-income children and adults.

Although the bill has now passed, the political wrangling has just begun.

"Just like voters watched Republicans preside in Washington and do absolutely nothing to address the skyrocketing costs of health care, they have also watched Republicans obstruct common sense solutions at every turn," said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (N.J.).

Countered Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele: "This Christmas, the Democrats and President Obama have given America the one gift that keeps on taking."

Pennsylvania Rep. Chris Carney (D) announced tonight that he would not switch to the Republican party despite a personal phone call today from Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) urging him to do so.

"I am flattered by the overtures of Sen[ator] McCain and other Republican Party officials and consider their outreach a sure sign that I have worked in a truly bipartisan manner," said Carney in a statement. "I appreciate the Republican Party's outreach, but I have no plans to change parties."

Carney won the northeastern Pennsylvania 10th district in 2006 thanks, in large part to the scandal surrounding then Rep. Don Sherwood (R). Carney won re-election in 2008 despite the fact that McCain won the seat 54 percent to 45 percent.

According to the Washington Post vote database, Carney has voted with the Democratic majority 90.8 percent of the time in the 111th Congress. Republicans have been aggressively courting candidates to challenge Carney in 2010 with former U.S. Attorney Tom Marino at the top of their list.

McCain's call to Carney signals a coordinated Republican effort to capitalize on the party switch on Tuesday of Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith, the first Democrat to switch to the GOP since Rep. Rodney Alexander in 2004.

Republicans insist there are others like Griffith out there and that the legislative course the House majority has steered is acting as a impetus to push Democrats out of the party.

Again, a single seat like Griffith's doesn't make a huge difference in the grand scheme of the battle for the House where Democrats hold a 40-seat majority. But, the symbolic import of a Democrat abandoning the party when it hold all the levers of power in Washington should not be underestimated.

The Fix is catching the holiday cheer and taking a few days off! Photo by James A. Parcell

We are taking some time off to celebrate Fix Jr.'s first Christmas and recharge our batteries heading into 2010 so posting will be light in this space through Jan. 4.

In the meantime, don't forget to:

1. Sign up to receive the "Morning Fix" newsletter in your email inbox.

2. Email us at chris.cillizza@wpost.com if you want to be alerted to the date, time and locale for future "Politics and Pints" nights -- our monthly political trivia game (with prizes)!

3. Check out our special "Live Fix" chat next Tuesday at 11 am. It'll be the last Fix chat of the year and, as such, will be heavy on our bests and worst from the year in politics.

4. Tell us -- via the comment section -- what you want to see more of in the Fix in 2010 and what you want to see less of.

A final note: Thanks to everyone who made 2009 another terrific year of politics here at the Fix. This blog is a labor of love and the kind words many -- though not all of you -- have about it is tremendously gratifying. Have a wonderful holiday week.

As 2009 draws to a close, the armchair historians are gathering to assess the year that was for President Barack Obama.

Presidential first years are almost always cast as make or break moments that irrevocably set an Administration down a path from which it can never vary. A look back at history, however, suggests that idea is part of the myth-making that surrounds a presidency.

We did a piece looking at that and other first-year myths for the Post's Outlook section this weekend. The first three myths -- and the appropriate debunking -- are below. The full story is here.

1. Congress is your willing handmaiden.

In the afterglow of the 2008 elections, when the country had not only overwhelmingly elected Obama president but had also handed Democrats wide majorities in the House and Senate, many in the Democratic Party had the sense that after years of frustration, a progressive agenda would finally be enacted.

Or not. While Congress has passed several of Obama's agenda items -- the expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program; the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for women and others to sue for wage discrimination; the economic stimulus package -- it has been more of a roadblock than a thoroughfare on other priorities, including health-care reform. Although health-care legislation now looks likely to pass, the president has acknowledged that its path through Congress has been neither as speedy nor as smooth as he had hoped.

The past two U.S. presidents also found that having their party in control of Congress didn't guarantee anything: Bill Clinton couldn't get health-care reform through a Democratic-led Congress in 1993 and George W. Bush's efforts at reforming Social Security following his 2004 reelection failed miserably, despite Republicans in charge of Congress.

Recent history provides cautionary tales for lawmakers who might be inclined to rubberstamp a new president's agenda. According the American Presidency Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate voted in lockstep with Clinton 86.3 percent of the time in 1993 and 86.4 percent of the time in 1994 -- setting the stage for Republicans to take over Congress in that year's midterm elections. In 2004, congressional Republicans voted with Bush 81 percent of the time, then lost 30 House seats to Democrats.

Alabama Democratic Rep. Parker Griffith will switch to the Republican party later today, according to a source familiar with the decision.

A freshman Democrat, Griffith was elected to the 5th district in 2008 to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Bud Cramer. He won with 51 percent despite the fact that President Barack Obama took just 38 percent of the vote in the north Alabama district. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dropped more than $1 million in independent expenditures to keep the seat.

"Democrats of every stripe and philosophy sweated and bled for this man," said Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Joe Turnham of Griffith. "He narrowly became a Congressman through the hard work, votes and financial contributions of thousands of Democrats. Today, they feel betrayed."

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) took it a step further, citing Griffith's "duty and responsibility" to return all contributions made to him by Democratic Members of Congress.

Griffith had voiced his frustration with party leaders several times and had made clear he wouldn't back House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.). "I would not vote for her," Griffith told a constituent at a town hall meeting in August. "Someone that divisive and that polarizing cannot bring us together."

But, he had voted with the Democratic majority 84.5 percent of time, according to the Washington Post votes database. Parker did, however, vote against President Obama's health care proposal.

In the immediate aftermath of Parker's switch, his entire consulting team quit, according to a well-placed source. And Democrats immediately began floating two names as potential Griffith challengers: former state Auditor Susan Parker who lost a bid for U.S. Senate in 2002 and Deborah Bell Paseur who ran and lost for a state Supreme Court opening last November.

The news of his party switch comes as much of official Washington was shutting down for the holiday break and is a blow to Democrats who seemed to have staunched the public relations problems caused by a quartet of recent retirements in swing districts.

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (Texas) sought to cast Griffith's decision as symbolic of larger problems with the Democratic caucus. "His decision is emblematic of the message that millions of concerned citizens have been trying to send to a Democrat Party that has become increasingly unwilling to listen," said Sessions.

It remains to be seen whether Griffith is an isolated case or the first of several Democrats to make the switch. There are 49 Democrats currently representing districts that Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) won in 2004 including 11 where Obama got under 40 percent of the vote. (A full list of those McCain districts is after the jump.)

Some of these members -- even if they do everything right over the next 11 months -- will struggle to win given the weight of the demographics working against them. The question is whether they brave the numbers -- and the political climate -- to run again or whether they either decide to retire (like Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon) or switch parties.

Griffith's switch is the first in the House since 2004 when Louisiana Rep. Rodney Alexander became a Republican. The last Member to go from Republican to Democrat was New York Rep. Mike Forbes in 2000. Forbes went on to lose his re-election bid that year.

On the Senate side, Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) switched to the Democratic party in 2008, laying the ground for Democrats to get to the filibuster-proof 60 seat majority when Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was -- finally -- sworn in over the summer.

The news of Griffith's switch was first reported by Politico.

1. Appointed Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet (D) took to the Senate floor on Monday to explain his vote in favor of the health care measure and, in so doing, worked to paint himself as an outsider to the insider political process playing out within his own party. "I am not naive about politics, but I expected more," said Bennet. "I will vote for health care reform because it is a step in the right direction. But I will not go home and defend the actions of a Washington that is out-of-touch." Bennet also walked right up to the line of speaking ill of his Democratic colleagues -- a Senate no-no -- but making clear that he purposely didn't ask for any special deals for his home state. "Just because others choose to engage in the same tired Washington rituals, doesn't mean that I have to," said Bennet, referring to, but never naming, people like Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Mary Landrieu (La.). The National Republican Senatorial Committee was watching Bennet's speech too and quickly put out a release condemning his attempts to distance himself from the vote he had just made. "Now that the sun has risen, Colorado's un-elected Senator apparently wants his constituents to believe that this vote never happened," said NRSC spokeswoman Amber Wilkerson Marchand. The strategy being employed by Bennet, a major target for national Republicans in 2010, is an interesting one -- justify your vote for the bill by citing the good it will do for your state while condemning the sort of legislative sausage-making that made the bill possible. It's a delicate dance but one that recognizes the political dangers of running as an incumbent -- of either party -- in this sort of environment. Outsiders are in for 2010.

2. Speaking of health care, President Obama sent an e-mail missive to the massive list he built during the 2008 campaign seeking to convey the import of the current health care debate and explain away the criticisms from the liberal left that the legislation amounts to a sell out to the insurance industry. "After a nearly century-long struggle, we are now on the cusp of making health insurance reform a reality in the United States of America," Obama wrote -- echoing the "appeal to history" argument put forward by senior adviser David Axelrod on the Sunday talk shows. Obama went on to note that insurance companies who try to "jack up their rates do so at their own peril" and emphasizing that insurers will no longer be able to turn people away due to preexisting conditions. "These are not small changes," concluded Obama. "These are big changes. They're fundamental reforms. They will save money. They will save lives." Republicans were also out in full rhetorical force on Monday against the bill. In a conference call with reporters, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele referred to the bill as a "boondoggle," adding that the legislation is "excessive in the spending, excessive in its government controls and bureaucracy, excessive in the tax burden that is laid upon individuals and small business owners." Arizona Sen. John McCain calling the legislation "one of the great Bernie Madoff gimmicks" and noting that Democrats "don't have the American public" when asked by Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos(!) why Republicans continued to use procedural measures to postpone a vote until Christmas Eve. Health care is the rare issue where smart strategists in both parties believe they have the political edge and, rather than hedging their bets, are doubling down instead. It's going to be a VERY interesting next 11 months.

3. Speaking of Steele, a Washington Times story posted late last night details the fact that the RNC chairman has continued to give paid speeches since assuming the post in January. It features a series of tut-tutting quotes from past RNC chairs including major D.C. players like Frank Fahrenkopf and Rich Bond. RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho called the story "silly," adding: "Michael Steele has been giving inspirational speeches based on his personal story long before he was elected RNC Chairman and will long after." Steele defenders will chalk this latest controversy up to the adversarial relationship that many longtime Washington GOP power players have with the chairman. And, it is true that Steele's strength comes far more from the far-flung grassroots of the GOP than the establishment party structure in the nation's capital. Still, stories like this provide Steele's GOP foes -- not to mention Democrats -- with a major chapter of a building narrative that the chairman is, first and foremost, looking out for his own personal interests. And, that's not a good story line for Steele as the party heads into 2010.

4. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has decided against running for any office in 2010 and will make that announcement today, according to a source close to the mayor. There are two practical effects of Giuliani's decision: 1) Hizzoner's political career is almost certainly over and 2) appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) is a heavy favorite to win the special election for the final two years of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's (D) term next November. With Giuliani not running -- and, let's be honest, no one ever expected him to run -- there are now only two major go/no go decisions as it relates to the Senate playing field next year. One is in Delaware where state Attorney General Beau Biden (D) is seen as very likely to run for his father's old seat but the fact he hasn't announced yet has some Republicans thinking he might take a pass. The other is in North Dakota where Senate GOPers continue to aggressively court popular Gov. John Hoeven to run against Sen. Byron Dorgan. If Hoeven runs, which still seems unlikely, it is a major recruiting coup for Republicans and ensures the most competitive Senate race that the state has seen in more than two decades.

5. Much was made of a statement from Rep. John Spratt's (D-S.C.) press secretary that the South Carolina Democrat, a much-rumored retirement possibility, was going to be running again in 2010. And, while this has to be considered a step in the right direction for Spratt, there are still those who wonder whether, ultimately, he will decide to run again until he himself goes on the record to dismiss the rumors. Spratt faces a serious challenge in the form of state Sen. Mick Mulvaney (R) and has made no secret of his plans to retire in the (somewhat) near future. Spratt still has plenty of time before the Palmetto State's March 30 filing deadline. Here a handful of states with earlier filing deadline to keep an eye on as members will need to make decisions about their futures either over the holidays or soon after they return to Washington: Kentucky (Jan. 26), West Virginia (Jan. 30), Ohio (Feb. 18), Indiana (Feb. 19) and North Carolina (Feb. 26).

With 2010 now just days away(!), every political analyst and junkie in the country is looking for the signs of whether a wave either directed at Democrats or incumbents more generally is building in the country

A new analysis that examines every midterm election since 1978 -- conducted by the Democratic polling firm Bennett, Petts & Normington -- suggests the critical factor in whether 2010 will be a wave election in which large numbers of House seats change parties or simply a typical midterm election where the President's party suffers losses consistent with historical norms is, in a word, turnout.

In the two wave elections in recent memory -- 1994 and 2006 -- turnout soared from the previous midterm and the composite of the electorate was heavily tilted to one party.

Take 1994, for example.

Four years earlier, turnout had been 62,354,853 with 32,397,782 votes cast for Democrats in Congressional elections nationwide and 27,402,036 for Republicans. That roughly five million vote edge led to an eight seat pickup for House Democrats in the House.

In 1994, turnout soared to nearly 70.5 million -- spurred by a massive 32 percent increase from 1990 in the number of votes cast for Republican candidates. At the same time, 854,000 less votes were cast for Democratic candidates, handing Republicans a 54-seat gain in the House.

The same was true -- in reverse -- in 2006. Six million more people voted in the 2006 midterms as compared to 2002 but while the total Democratic votes increased by more than 8.4 million, the Republican tally fell by 1.4 million.

What's the lesson from those numbers? That a wave only happens when two things happen simultaneously: 1) turnout skyrockets overall 2) one side makes massive increases in its vote share from the previous midterm elections while the other side stays stable or loses slightly from its total votes.

We chatted with Fixistas for an hour earlier today -- fielding questions on the issue du jour: health care.

A few of our favorite exchanges are below. You can -- and should ;) -- read the whole thing here.

Health care and the NFL: Is the health care reform bill (and other large pieces of legislation) like the NFL in that winning (or passing a bill) makes it all good?

Chris Cillizza: I think the White House is hoping so.

Yesterday on a slew of talk shows, White House senior adviser David Axelrod kept arguing that the public opposition to the bill would fade once it began to be implemented and all of the boogeymen about the legislation turned out to not materialize.

That's clearly a real possibility. But, remember that public perception is not typically subject to wild swings -- barring some sort of huge event.

The public has been souring on this bill for several months. Is a signing ceremony at the White House a big enough event to force people to take a second look at their concerns about the bill?

Not totally sure.

The Senate's early morning vote to bring the health care bill to the floor marks the beginning of the end -- or is it the end of the beginning? -- of a legislative fight that encompassed the majority of President Barack Obama's first year in office.

So, who won and who lost in this epic struggle? The Fix spoke with a number of political operatives over the past few days about that very question and solicited ideas from Fixistas as well. The results are below.

Agree or disagree with our picks? The comments section awaits.

Winners

* President Obama: Did the White House underestimate the challenge of reforming the health-care system? Absolutely. And, the months of process-based stories on the warring Democratic factions and declining poll numbers were the price they paid for that miscalculation. But ultimately Obama -- once he persuades the House to go along -- will get a health-care reform package through Congress, a legislative feat of epic proportions.

* Harry Reid: Reid may not be a terribly impressive politician in front of the camera, but behind closed doors he is without peer. Reid managed to divine what each of the 60 members of his fractious caucus needed to be a "yes" and give it to them without permanently hobbling the bill. Hard to argue with that kind of result.

* John McCain: The Mac was back during the health-care debate, a feisty presence on the Senate floor and in front of the television cameras, leading the GOP opposition to the bill. McCain's performance over the past several weeks proved that he is and will continue to be a major force in the chamber. His stalwart opposition to the plan is also good politics, making it harder for former representative J.D. Hayworth to challenge him from the ideological right in a primary next year.

* Ben Nelson: The Nebraska senator played the legislative process like a virtuoso, not only getting stricter language about abortion funding included in the final bill but also scoring another huge plum -- the promise of full federal funding for the expansion of Medicaid in the Cornhusker State. Of Nelson's bargaining, one Senate Democratic operative said: "A one-man study on how the Senate works -- they should teach this in civics class."

* The National Republican Senatorial Committee: Strategists at the Senate GOP campaign arm were rejoicing over the weekend with the news that targeted Democrats including Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.) were going to vote for the measure. Unlike Nelson or even Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu (D), who is up for reelection in 2014, neither Lincoln nor Bennet got anything major in exchange for their vote -- meaning they could face the blowback from those unhappy with the legislation in their respective states without an accompanying sweetener to make the bill more palatable. And, will the vote of Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) for the package be just the leverage the NRSC needs to get Gov. John Hoeven (R) into the race?

1. The White House trotted out one of its most disciplined messengers -- senior adviser David Axelrod -- to make the case on the Sunday chat shows for the historic nature of President Obama's accomplishment on health care. Axelrod described the moment as a "historical crossroads" in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press", adding: "Seven presidents have tried to pass comprehensive health insurance reform, seven presidents have failed. We've been talking about it for 100 years. We're on the doorstep of getting it done, and it'll be a great victory for the American people." On "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", Axelrod used the same language to defend against the assertion that fight for the bill was far more difficult than the administration initially expected. Ditto Axelrod on CNN's "State of the Union." The appeal to history is an attempt to reinforce one of the fundamental pillars of Barack Obama's image: that he can break through old divisions and get government working again for the American people. There are, of course, two major caveats here. First, the bill passed the House with a single Republican vote -- Louisiana Rep. Joseph Cao -- and looks likely to win approval in the Senate without a single GOP vote. Second, Axelrod's supposition is heavily dependent on the bill making positive change in the way health care is delivered in the country. If the American people believe the bill was the wrong thing, the history Obama will be making is of the far more ignominious type.

2. Make sure to look out for the Fix's winners and losers from the health care debate in this space shortly. (You can still offer your own take on who won and who lost in the battle over health care too.) But, here's a taste: WINNERS: 1) Harry Reid: By hook and by crook, he got 58 Democrats and two independents behind the bill. 2) Barack Obama: The bill may not be everything the president wanted and the process of getting legislation passed was VERY messy but the fact remains that Obama got a health care bill when his predecessors had failed to do so. 3) John McCain: After months of listlessness in the Senate, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee emerged as a leading voice of the opposition to the bill. LOSERS: 1) Joe Lieberman: The Connecticut Independent's move to kill the public option was widely derided as a flip flop. It's only impact may well be to further inflame the liberal left against him. 2) Liberals: The Senate bill steadily stripped away provisions near and dear to the left while the White House cut deals with moderates. Stay tuned to this space later this morning for the Fix's full list of winners and losers.

3. The deal Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson (D) cut for the Cornhusker State didn't satisfy Gov. Dave Heineman (R-Neb.) who quickly distanced himself from it. "Nebraskans did not ask for a special deal, only a fair deal," said Heineman. "Under no circumstances did I have anything to do with Senator Nelson's compromise." Heineman, sounding very much like a candidate, added that the "responsibility for this special deal lies solely on the shoulders of Senator Ben Nelson." Nelson isn't up for re-election until 2012 halfway through Heineman's second full term in office -- assuming he wins (and he is heavily favored to do so) next fall. The National Republican Senatorial Committee will go hard after Heineman in advance of Nelson's run for reelection and, if he runs, the GOP governor will be an even-money bet (at worst) against the Democratic incumbent. Heineman's strong attacks on Nelson despite the plaudits the senator won from strategists of both parties for his actions on health care suggest the Republican has an eye on a 2012 race.