SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Yes, There's A Middle Grounds between Dead and Done Deal

JONATHAN CHAIT MARCH 4, 2010

Yes, There's A Middle Grounds between Dead and Done Deal

Yesterday, Jonathan Bernstein wrote a post entitled "Health care: Done Deal?," which he immediately followed up by writing, "I suspect that's too strong, but it sure looks as if this is really going to happen." In response, I commented:

I'm not quite this optimistic. You're still talking about the Democratic Party. Some small thing could go wrong and make them all start panicking again. Even if everything goes right, it's going to be a tight vote, the votes aren't there, and the party might not be organized or cohesive enough to overcome its collective action problem (every member has a strong interest in reform passing, but they can't figure out which members switch from No to Yes to allow that to happen.) That said, I agree with Bernstein that things are looking pretty good. I've been holding at about a 60% chance of passage since Scott Brown won his Senate seat.

Now, here's how Megan McArdle records these opinions:

On the one hand, there are people like the TNR crew, and Jonathan Bernstein, Andrew's guest-blogger, who seem to think that this it's the next best thing to a done deal....So there you are: either it's a done deal, or it's dead.  There's no longer much middle ground in between.

This is a picayune point, but this is bizarre. Bernstein made pretty clear he doesn't really consider health care a done deal, but quite likely. I replied that I'm less optimistic than Bernstein, and consider it a 60% possibility. Then McArdle concludes that both Bernstein and I agree that it's a "done deal." I just don't know how to reply to this. My opinion was clearly neither of these. And it's not like I employed some vague, easy to misconstrue language. "60% chance of passage" is a fairly precise expression of my estimation of the likelihood of passage.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 4 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

4 comments

This reminds me of McArdle's 2005 National Review story on quantum physics, in which she resolved Schrödinger's cat by pointing out that thanks to liberal whining about terrorists' civil rights, the box containing the cat was destroyed in an al-Qaeda attack. Therefore the cat is dead, and no state of uncertainty exists. NR readers will remember this as the piece that led to the magazine's 2006 attack on the Nobel committee for ignoring conservatives like McArdle when awarding the physics prize to Mather and Smoot.

- rhubarbs

March 4, 2010 at 10:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course, that joke would have worked a lot better if I didn't constantly confuse McArdle with one of the NRO drones whom I'll not name for fear of worsening my confusion of the two otherwise unrelated women. I also can never remember which guy is Elmore Leonard and which is James Ellroy. Apologies to McArdle for again confusing her name with that of the hack whom she is not.

- rhubarbs

March 4, 2010 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm looking forward to Megan McCardley's head exploding when HCR is enacted into law. Or is that Betsey McCaughey? I can't keep them all straight.

- wildboy

March 4, 2010 at 11:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm looking forward to dtohmatsu's head exploding, he who didn't merely predict that HCR was dead but proclaimed it cremated and dispersed to the four winds.

- roidubouloi

March 4, 2010 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close