Ross Perot got about twenty percent of the vote. Everybody who voted for him was an . . . well, let's just say they're a guaranteed no vote in any retention election. So, assuming as you do a 60 percent supermajority, it comes down to obtaining a majority among the remaining 80 percent.

Whether one sees the presidency as higly important or as an office that has grown well beyond its conception in the constitution, there's a good argument to be made for requiring a supermajority to remove him and not spending so much money on elections every four years. The office becomes not quite like a federal judgeship where you serve for life. It's more like a California appellate judgeship where you infrequently stand for retention and generally nobody cares.

[snide]

The Latest on Health Care Reform

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report, 12/17/09) - The United States Senate today unveiled details of its health care plan, tentatively called CompromiseCareTM:

Under CompromiseCareTM, people with no coverage will be allowed to keep their current plan.

Medicare will be extended to 55-year-olds as soon as they turn 65.

You will have access to cheap Canadian drugs if you live in Canada.

States whose names contain vowels will be allowed to opt out of the plan.

You get to choose which doctor you cannot afford to see.

You will not have to be pre-certified to qualify for cremation.

A patient will be considered "pre-existing" if he or she already exists.

You'll be free to choose between medications and heating fuel.

Patients can access quality health care if they can prove their name is "Lieberman."

You will have access to natural remedies, such as death.
[/snide]

All kidding aside about what is in the bill, I must say that I'm mostly on Nate Silver's side that it is better to take it and then start working on improving rather than any attempt to start over.

I am surprised by the number of people who seem to be surprised that "Democrat" does not 100% overlap with "Netroots Progressive".

Oh, I agree. And I never expected total reform to my liking to have come out of this first step. It's just that with the Democratic majority and general support of the public, it seemed like they were poised to take more than the absolute bare minimum step towards the end point of real, substantive reform. I expected things to slide back from the ambitious first drafts, but seeing them slide back this far is frustrating and does not bode well for the future pace of improvement.

General support of the public? Are you reading the same polls I'm reading?

56% oppose, 40% support

I think perhaps the issue is that many do not see this as a first step toward improvement.

Support has slipped as the process has dragged on and the bill has been compromised into nothingness. But yes, I maintain that when the process started it had the general support of the public.

ETA: That's also a poll that measures support for this specific plan, not support for reform in general. Different question.

Oh, I agree that in general people want reform. I want reform. But nothing even close to what is being offered.