They can’t do this until Harry Reid is out in Nevada, unless they are conceding his seat. I’m not sure Cap and Trade is politically viable right now. People may be somewhat predisposed to support a very modest increase in energy costs in exchange, but the current program is set up so that consumers essentially bail companies out. I can’t imagine that’s going to fly.

Further, while Brown might be relatively moderate, it’s unlikely that his first order of business would be to help Democrats navigate their legislation to passage.

What would a Scott Brown victory mean for other legislation?

I actually think this could be a good thing for the Dems in the long run. Bills that are passed with bipartisan support have more staying power–it’s harder for the opposition party to run against a bill that many of them voted for. (Case in point: Medicare in 1965.)

Cap-and-trade is still doable–but only if the Dems accept a commitment to expanding nuclear power (which in turn means nuclear reprocessing of nuclear waste), and tell the loonies at GreenPeace to go piss up a rope. A bill that accepts that we need to cut greenhouse gases but also accepts that nuclear power is the only solution that is provably scalable today could get Brown, McCain, Snowe, Collins, etc., to vote for it.

Immigration reform is likely dead. Neither party–each for its own reasons–accepts what the polls have been saying, which is that the voters will accept giving illegal aliens a humane path to citizenship only after border security is enforced to prevent any more from coming here. If Coakley wins, there is a very slim chance that the Dems could pass it on a strict party line vote (I give that less than a 20% chance). If Scott Brown wins, the chance of passage is absolute zero.

Scott Brown will support Obama’s war policies in Afghanistan much more than Coakley would have. That came out in the Brown-Coakley debates. Afghanistan is one issue where Obama can get constructive criticism, and often support, from the congressional GOP for his policy.

Option Two means that neither the House nor Senate bill can be passed as is under reconciliation, since there are too many line items that don’t meet the requirements for reconciliation. And those are some of the most contentious issues: The mandate that all Americans must purchase insurance, abortion, etc. Instead, the bill would need to be unbundled: The budgetary items could be passed under reconciliation. Then the House would have to swallow hard, grit its teeth, and accept the Senate version of the non-budgetary items (but see below). FEASIBLE

Option Three is not feasible, given the limited time frame and the approaching November elections. And with the upset win by Brown in another New England state, Snowe is liable to dig in her heels and demand more than the Dems can deliver. FAIL

Option Four is certainly possible–but the leftists in the House don’t like the Senate bill and it’s going to be tough to get them to vote for it. The vote for health care was fairly close in the House too–Pelosi can’t afford to lose the votes of the entire Progressive Caucus. FEASIBLE

The best solution, IMHO, would be Option Two, as I modified it: Unbundle the Senate bill, pass what ever can be passed under reconciliation; then Pelosi has to force her House Dems to accept the remainder of the Senate bill. If they can’t, then at least Obama gets something called “HEALTH CARE” that he can sign. And those other things become campaign issues in November. Well and why not.