Because it was so close on the House side any Senate health care bill that has a chance to make it to reconciliation is going to have to be far more moderate than the House bill. Landrieu was just reelected in ’08 so I assume she has more insulation from electoral repercussions than others might. Nelson is up for reelection in ’12, but Lincoln is up in 2010. According to one polling site, Lincoln’s average polling data is 41.3 to her opponents 41. Meanwhile Arkansas went 59-39 for McCain in ’08 meaning it will be electorally harder for Lincoln to vote yay unless she is given a big carrot.

Reid has done a lot to make the Senate version more moderate (costs less, deficit neutral, CBO projections to cut the deficit by $130 billion over first decade, up to $650 billion over second, delivery reform, etc.) and he has done other things like proposing refunding abstinence only sex education–maybe in an attempt to win over more moderates/conservative Democrats like allowing the Stupak-Pitts amendment to be voted on in the House.

I think that the Senate will produce a health care reform bill, but what is in it is a different story. These moderates who hold the power are obviously going to exploit there power to win concessions to make voting yay for it more acceptable with their already split constituencies. Meanwhile, I’m really interested to see if and when the Senate passes a bill, how reconciliation will be. I would assume that the Senate would have more power in negotiations because House members are A. up for reelection every two years and want to show they didn’t just waste months of time on a failed legislative initiative, and B. the House probably will concede more because Dems have a larger majority willing to make it more moderate to get something passed (unless you’re Dennis Kucinich and you vote against it because it’s not liberal enough).