Jonathan Cohn runs through a few of the options for passing the Democrats’ health-care bill even if Brown wins. He leaves out the option of going the reconciliation route, but I don’t think Democrats would do that: It would take too long and force them to give up too many of the policy changes they want. So that leaves: 1) making a deal with Senator Snowe, 2) trying to ram a deal through with Sen. Paul Kirk’s vote before Brown is seated, and 3) getting the House to pass the bill that already passed the Senate word-for-word.

Cohn is skeptical that Snowe is amenable to a deal. He’s skeptical that Senate Democrats would hang together for option two. If Lieberman or Bayh or Lincoln or Ben Nelson or any other lone Democrat refuses to go along, the Democrats cannot succeed. My own bet is that more than one Democratic senator would peel off. Republicans might also succeed with legal challenges to Kirk’s vote.

So Cohn thinks the third route is the one Democrats should take. I think he is underestimating (or underplaying) how difficult it would be for House Democrats to take this route. He says that House Democrats who voted for the health-care bill earlier are going to be attacked for it whether or not they flip-flop, so they may as well keep voting for it.

But a lot of House Democrats didn’t vote for Pelosi’s bill. She won that vote 220–215. Since then Rep. Robert Wexler (D., Fla.) has left the House. I’d be surprised if Reps. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) and Joseph Cao (R., La.) vote for the Senate abortion language. So Pelosi will probably have to get some Democrats who voted against the earlier bill to vote for it now. And I don’t think she was holding a lot of votes in reserve last time around, because I doubt she would have agreed to let the Stupak amendment come to a vote if she didn’t absolutely have to.

Why might a Democrat who voted against the Pelosi bill vote for the Senate version? Maybe some centrist House Democrats who objected to the public option will favor the Senate bill, which doesn’t have it; but if, as most people assume, it was fear of the reaction at home to a yes vote that really explained their no votes, that motive has only gotten stronger. Or maybe some of these Democrats will decide to put the good of the party, or their own conviction that the bill is on balance a good thing, ahead of their political self-interest. But again, if there were a lot of Democrats who fell into that category, would Pelosi have allowed the Stupak amendment to pass?

I have assumed all along that Pelosi has told some House Democrats that they are likely to lose the next election however they vote on health care but will be taken care of if they vote with her. The problem with a Coakley loss is that the universe of people she has to reassure will expand dramatically. (As Coakley herself apparently warned.) And Pelosi’s travails don’t stop there. The unions will have to accept a Cadillac tax that applies to them, and know perfectly well that “fixing it later” is no sure thing. A few other pro-life Democrats might join Stupak.

All of which is to say that if Brown wins, the Snowe option may make more sense for Democrats. If they try instead to go straight to the House they are, I think, likely to fail.