Health care reform got a potential death blow, as Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) spelled out his problems with the bill:

In addition to the abortion question, Nelson said he has serious concerns about what he sees as unfunded mandates for states, new taxes and the massive spending in the bill. "They way in which money is raised is not acceptable," he said. "So if there isn't a way to raise the money in tight times, I think you have to look at a scaled-back version."

In other words, even after all of the ways in which the Democratic caucus moved to make Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) happy, it doesn't come close to addressing Nelson's concerns.  This doesn't mean that he'll demand everything he wants to move the bill, but Stupak language and some type of opt-out for the Medicaid expansion (which burdens the states) seem to be at least in the ballpark.

The interesting thing is that for all of the focus on Lieberman, Nelson shared all of Lieberman's concerns, and then some.  Unless Nelson is bluffing (and he's been saying things like this all along), it looks like the Administration, the left, and the media were distracted from the real problem in getting to 60 all along (assuming Snowe won't vote for cloture).  The health reform bill is in serious, serious jeopardy, because I can't see the left stomaching Nelson's demands.

A new Quinnipiac survey (1,381 RVs, 12/8-14, MoE +/- 2.6%) shows that Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter (D) has surpassed the critical 50 percent threshold in his first Democratic primary race, but remains in a tough race in the general election fight against Republican Pat Toomey.

Primary Election Matchup
Specter 53 (+9 vs. last poll, 10/1)
Sestak 30 (+5)
Und 15 (-13)

General Election Matchups
Specter 44 (+2)
Toomey 44 (+1)
Und 11 (-2)

Toomey 40 (+2)
Sestak 35 (unch)
Und 22 (-3)

Toomey maintains a small edge over Specter in the RCP Average.

Specter's job approval rating has ticked upward to 47 percent, from 44 percent in October, while 45 percent disapprove, down from 48 percent. President Obama's approval rating holds steady at 49 percent, though his disapproval rating jumped from 42 to 45 percent. More than 70 percent of voters say Obama's support for Specter has no impact on their preference in the Senate race.

Favorable Ratings
Specter 43 / 45
Toomey 35 / 10
Sestak 20 / 9

Health reform is shuffling toward its endgame, and even though the bill's popularity resembles George Bush's circa 2007, Democrats seem determined to push the bill through. Browse through certain liberal blogs, or listen to Democratic leadership speeches, and you'll read the same justification again and again: However bad passing this bill might be, politically speaking, not passing it would be much, much worse.

I've been skeptical of this line of argument for quite some time. This summer, I showed that Democrats from Republican-leaning districts who supported President Clinton's agenda fared significantly worse in the 1994 midterm election than those who did not.  It seems almost certain that an additional vote for Clinton's then-wildly-unpopular healthcare bill would not have helped these Democrats any; passing ClintonCare almost certainly would have made 1994 even worse for the Democrats.  Likewise, after taking tough votes on the stimlulus package and cap-and-trade, it seemed unlikely that a vote on the then-mildly-unpopular health care bill would help Congressional Democrats.

Nothing has changed my mind since then. Rather, as events have unfolded I've become increasingly convinced that there is little political upside for Democrats in passing this bill, and much, much downside. For one thing, the "failure is not an option" argument makes little sense at a very basic level. It's the equivalent of arguing that what the GOP really needed to do to save its majority in 2006 was to sign an immigration bill that deported illegal immigrants; maybe it should have pushed through private accounts for social security, just to show the country that the GOP was capable of “governing,” and to give the base something to get excited over. The problem is that the public doesn't want to see a party simply “governing” or pushing through major legislation. They want to see a party “governing well,” and pushing through major legislation that the public wants.

The 2009 elections showed that the public does not equate "governing well" with "moving the agenda to the left."  Democrats have convinced themselves that the 2009 elections somehow showed that the Democrats really need to push through more of Obama's agenda to win, much as some Republican partisans convinced themselves that the GOP lost in 1996 because it cut a deal with President Clinton over the government shutdown. As Kos wrote to his party the Wednesday following the elections, “[t]he choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.”

But the biggest problem in 2009 was not really that liberals didn't turn out to vote. The problem was that the Democrats lost Independents and moderates. Take Virginia. There was a substantial drop-off in Democratic performance from 2008 to 2009.  But the real change this year is how Independents voted (as was the case in 2006). Independents in Virginia voted 49%-48% for Obama in 2008, but gave Bob McDonnell a 66%-33% landslide win in 2009.

To put this a different way, if Creigh Deeds had run to the left and managed to increase Democratic turnout to 2008 levels, without changing the way Independents split, he would have closed the gap with McDonnell, but still would have lost by more than five points, 52.25%-46.5%. If, however, Deed had persuaded Independents to vote for him at the same level as they did in 2008 without increasing Democratic turnout, he would have fared better, losing by a slim 51%-48% margin. Indeed, this is exactly how Jim Webb won in 2006; even though his electorate had the rough composition of the 2009 electorate, he managed to take a 12-point win among Independents and win the election.

Democrats may object to this analysis on the grounds that many Republicans took to calling themselves Independents during the post-Bush years. But running the same experiment using liberal/moderate/conservative splits instead of partisan identification doesn't change the result. Deeds barely loses (losing 50.8%-47.9%) in an electorate with 2009's composition where he performs as well as Obama did among moderates. If he recreates the 2008 electorate, but doesn't improve his performance among moderates, he loses by a larger margin (53.5%-46.4%).

We see the same effect up I-95 in blue New Jersey. Recreating the 2008 electorate without changing voting patterns would have actually given Jon Corzine a narrow 51%-49% win over Chris Christie. But taking the 2009 electorate and having Independents vote as they did in 2008 would have expanded Corzine's win to a substantial 55%-44% clobbering of the former U.S. Attorney.

This illustrates another difficulty with the left's argument. Jon Corzine did exactly what liberals suggested Creigh Deeds should have done: He cleaved unto his President, and he still lost. New Jersey had a slightly smaller drop-off in Democratic participation than did Virginia (3 points versus 4 points), but the rightward swing among Independents was even more pronounced (21 points versus 16 points).  This suggests that the 2008 turnout was a phenomenon that owed more to Obama's highly personal candidacy than any particular set of domestic initiatives he may have been espousing.  It might simply be impossible for anyone not named "Obama" to recreate the Obama coalition.

Polling for the House of Representatives further demonstrates little upside for having vulnerable members vote for the health bill. If the best way for Democrats in swing-to-conservative leaning districts to keep their seats is to bet on the base turning out in record numbers, then we should see Democrats who are supportive of the President's agenda outperforming those who oppose it.

But consider Vic Snyder. Snyder represents an Arkansas district based in Little Rock, which went modestly for George W. Bush before going strongly for John McCain. Snyder has been a relatively loyal foot soldier for Obama, voting for the stimulus, cap and trade legislation, and the health care bill. According to a November PPP (D) poll, Snyder holds an upside-down approval rating, and barely leads a relatively unknown GOP opponent. Snyder still takes 80% of the Democratic vote in the district, while his opponent gets 83% of the Republican vote. The difference-maker? His opponent leads Snyder among Independents by a 15-point margin.

Or consider Dina Titus. The first-term representative, who defeated a GOP incumbent in 2008, has likewise supported almost all of Obama's agenda. She finds herself tied against a relatively unknown GOP opponent, receiving only 40% of the vote.  Pluralities in the district, where Democrats enjoy a sizable registration advantage, oppose the health reform bill.

Now consider Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. She opposed the health care bill and cap and trade legislation. Presumably, this should turn off her left-leaning supporters, and she should fare no better than Snyder or Titus. But another recent PPP (D) poll shows her actually in fairly good shape. As we might expect, her standing among Democrats is a tepid 63%-24% split, about 8 points lower than President Obama's. But she enjoys a 42%-47% split among Republicans – nearly three times Obama's approval rating in that group -- and a 41%-41% split among Independents. Because she's been able to win over Republicans and Independents in head-to-head matchups (picking up 24% of the former and 47% of the latter), she leads both of her Republican opponents by healthy margins.

This really should not surprise anyone. Almost by definition, representatives only win in red/swing districts by appealing to substantial numbers of Republicans and Independents. You just can't do it by appealing to the Democratic base. This has a disproportionate effect on Democrats, who choose to pack their most fervent supporters into a few heavily Democratic districts. This is why there are twice as many districts with PVIs of D+20 or greater than there are districts with PVIs of R+20 or greater, and why a healthy majority of districts – 239 – have PVIs leaning toward the Republicans.

If Democrats need to appeal to Independents and moderates to hold their majorities, then passing this bill is a terrible idea.  The most recent polling shows that 81% of Republicans and 69% of Independents oppose the healthcare plan (with 74% of Republicans and 57% of Independents strongly opposing it).  With majorities of Independents strongly opposed to the bill, it's really hard to imagine any boost in Democratic turnout from passing the plan being enough to surpass the ensuing backlash from Republicans and Independents.

It isn't even clear that there will be a boost in Democratic turnout.  The latest version of the Senate bill holds little appeal for progressives. As I noted on the blog, without a public option, this bill becomes a wet, sloppy kiss to the insurance industry. It doesn't even represent a substantial triumph for liberalism by significantly expanding government through taxing the wealthy; there are large new subsidies, but for the most part the subsidies are paid for by gouging Medicare and taxing union health benefits. It really reads like a bill a moderate Republican would propose; it is a slightly stronger version of RomneyCare at this point. In other words, the only remaining group that might have even arguably been excited to vote for Democrats on this bill is now at best lukewarm on it.

This bill may encourage a few Democratic policy wonks to run to the polls, but this trickle will be nothing compared to the flood of angry Republicans and Independents. And this is all analysis conducted before election ads begin to run telling voters about how the Democrats will jail them if they don't buy health insurance. To which the Democrats will respond “no, you see, it's only a big fine.”

I suspect that most of the left intuits this. That's why the other argument you'll see – and this is especially true of the Administration and the leadership – is that the Democrats should pass this bill because they have a chance to make history:  Do something the Democrats have wanted since the Truman Administration. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid believe that if they pass this bill, regardless of what else happens to them, they'll have earned a place in the Democrats' Pantheon of Great Leaders. These Democrats see universal coverage as their Holy Grail (never mind that the bill actually leaves behind millions of uninsured), it's within reach, and they really don't care what sort of bill they have to pass to get it. They'll even let the press start describing them, with reason, as allies of Big Pharma to achieve the win.  The train is simply running out of control at this point, and all Pelosi can do is stand at the front and repeat increasingly out-of-touch talking points about the American people wanting them to enact this bill and standing up to the insurance industry.

I don't think they're close to finding their Grail.  I think the better analogy is probably that they're close to their Moby Dick. And we all know what happens to Captain Ahab once he finally harpoons his white whale.

President Obama's remarks in Copenhagen, as prepared for delivery:

Good morning. It's an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you – like me – were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.

So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge – the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.

I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.

As the world's largest economy and the world's second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home – by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.

These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America's economic future – that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America's national security, because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.

So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.

After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.

First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I'm pleased that many of us have already done so, and I'm confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if – and only if – it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.

Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula – one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord – one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.

The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world's fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.

We know the fault lines because we've been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor – one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren.

Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.

There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it's time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.

We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past – with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet. Thank you.

A new Rasmussen survey (500 LVs, 12/14, MoE +/- 4.5%) shows that either of the Democratic gubernatorial candidates in Illinois could hold the seat for the party next fall. Of note, though, is that Gov. Pat Quinn, who replaced Rod Blagojevich after his impeachment, performs no better than his Democratic challenger, Comptroller Dan Hynes. Quinn also has a higher negative rating, and is held to the low-40s against lesser-known Republican candidates.

General Election Matchups
Quinn 41 -- McKenna 33 -- Und 15
Quinn 45 -- Brady 30 -- Und 13
Quinn 41 -- Dillard 30 -- Und 19

Hynes 43 -- McKenna 30 -- Und 21
Hynes 46 -- Brady 27 -- Und 19
Hynes 42 -- Dillard 29 -- Und 21

Favorable Ratings
Quinn 52 / 44
Hynes 52 / 30
Brady 36 / 37
Dillard 38 / 36
McKenna 42 / 34

In the race assured to have the most interesting (and Scandanavian-sounding) names, four Republicans lead the likely Democratic candidate in the race for governor of South Dakota. All five candidates for the office that were tested by Public Policy Polling, however, remain mostly unknown to the state.

"Ken Knuppe is the most obscure with 82% of voters professing no opinion about him," notes PPP. "He is followed by Scott Munsterman at 78%, Dave Knudson at 72%, Dennis Daugaard at 67%, and Scott Heidepreim at 57%."

Daugaard 42 - Heidepreim 29

Knudson 39 - Heidepreim 29

Munsterman 35 - Heidepreim 30

Knuppe 32 - Heidepreim 30

Perhaps helping the Republicans' cause is the fact that term-limited Gov. Mike Rounds (R) remains one of the most popular governors in the country with a 55% approval rating.

The survey was taken Dec. 10-13 of 702 RV with a margin of error of +/- 3.7%.

Gallup's monthly survey of the approval rating of Congress finds that more than two-thirds of Americans continue to disapprove of the way the legislative body is handling its job. Just a quarter appove of body's job performance, while 69% disapprove.

While the overall approval rating hasn't changed, approval by party has. Democrats in the Senate have been unable to move a health care reform bill, and subsequently rank-and-file Democrats' approval of Congress has dipped 5 points. Meanwhile, independents' views of Congress improved 5 points, and Republicans dropped by just 2 points.

At 19%, independents' approval is 15 points lower than it was in March. Democrats have dropped by the same amount since then.

"With the vote for Congress in 2010 already looking extremely tight, congressional Democrats in particular should be resolving in the new year to find ways to move approval higher," writes Gallup's Lymari Morales.

The survey was taken Dec. 11-13 of 1,025 adults with a margin of error of +/- 4%.

A new survey from the Public Policy Institute of California finds former eBay CEO Meg Whitman leading the Republican gubernatorial primary field with the support of nearly one-third of voters, while former governor Jerry Brown (D) leads all of his potential general election foes. Other Republicans tested include former congressman Tom Campbell and state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner.

GOP Primary
Whitman 32
Campbell 12
Poizner 8

General Election Matchups
Brown 43 - Whitman 37

Brown 46 - Campbell 34

Brown 47 - Poizner 31

Just 25% of Republicans and just 38% of Democrats said they were satisfied with their choice of candidates -- indicating a lack of enthusiasm among voters. "The lack of attention and enthusiasm suggests that people don't see this gubernatorial election as the answer to their problems," PPIC President and CEO Mark Baldassare said, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. "There's a huge undecided factor in the GOP primary, and these candidates aren't well-known at this point."

The survey of 2,004 California residents was conducted Dec. 1-8 with a margin of error of +/- 2%.

As the cable wars carry on, a new poll finds that Fox News informs roughly five adults for every one adult informed by MSNBC.

The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll asked: “From which ONE of the following national television news sources do you get MOST of your information about politics and current events?”

Fully 27 percent said Fox. Only 5 percent said MSNBC. Meanwhile, 16 percent said CNN and 36 percent cited the major networks.

But the contest of note is MSNBC and Fox. The rivalry, the networks, have become surrogates for the two political tribes of American politics. The blue tribe controls Washington but this is one bout the red tribe takes with ease.

Meanwhile, as The New York Times details, CNN falls behind MSNBC for the first time this year in the ratings race. But as the Journal poll would hint, and so much data has before, on top is Fox — 2009 marks Fox's greatest ratings year yet. It's no wonder President Obama eventually decided that even he could no longer ignore this Fox.

A new poll from the Tarrance Group (R) commissioned by the American Future Fund aims to put the squeeze on Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson (D) over health care.

In the survey (500 LVs, 12/14-15, MoE +/- 4.5%), respondents were asked: "In general, do you favor or oppose President Obama's plan to expand health care coverage to most Americans even if this plan increases the role of the federal government in health care and increases the cost of the deficit." Two-thirds responded that they oppose it, compared to 26 percent who favor it.

But it should be noted that the wording of the question differs significantly from the question other firms ask, and Democrats and the White House contend that their plan would actually reduce the deficit. On another question, 39 percent say they favor "major changes" in the current health care system, and another 8 percent say a new system should replace the current one; 46 percent say only minor changes are needed.

The real warning for Nelson, who holds what may be the 60th vote for Democrats, comes in this result: 61 percent say that if Nelson votes for the current plan, they are less likely to support him for re-election in 2012; 26 percent say it would make them more likely to support him.

Nelson does have a 51 percent job approval rating among Nebraskans, compared to 41 percent who disapprove.

Favorable Ratings
Gov. Heineman (R) 64 / 12
Sen. Nelson (D) 58 / 34
Sen. Johanns (R) 66 / 24