Greg Sargent pulls out some interesting figures from a recent WaPo poll:

* That Dems hold an overwhelming 20-point lead on which party is most trusted on major issues, with Obama preferred over Republicans by 12 points on health care.

* That a majority, 53%, agrees that “government reform of the nation’s health care system is necessary to control costs and expand coverage,” underscoring yet again that the public wants government action.

* That a plurality now believes reform won’t prevent people from keeping their own health care, suggesting the public may be it reform as less and less threatening.

* That a big majority, or 62%, believe Republicans have not made a good faith effort to cooperate with Dems on health care.

That last one seems the most damning. Everyone talks about 2010 being full of doom for the Democratic party. To be sure, historic majorities like the current Democratic position don’t last. By definition, any “historic” majority is going to include seats that, for one reason or another, are more likely to be held by the non-historic-majority party more often than not.

But, and it’s a big but: to go back to the “predictable” seat holder party-wise, you still have to give those “predictable” voters a reason to prefer you. And the GOP isn’t doing it so far. Even worse: people are noticing. Naturally, we need to see some of these toss-up districts broken out to be sure, but I suspect this polling data is more or less on the nose.

The bad news for Democrats in this poll is this:

a big majority wants Dems to craft a bill that will win GOP support

Since we know a priori that no proposal will win GOP support (party leaders have done everything but put that in writing on granite tablets), there would appear to be a rather hazardous, built-in capacity for outrage. That is: voters, never ones to pay a lot of attention, will see that some healthcare reforms passed, not realize that nothing rolls out until 2012 or later (circa 2010: “I ain’t seen nuthim from it ‘tall!”), see (and be told repeatedly) that not one member of the GOP voted for it in the House and that (at most) one or two GOPers voted for it in the Senate, and will assume that all the “problems” with the bill are well and truly the fault of the Democrats. And, here’s the rub: they’ll assume it’s all because they wouldn’t work with the GOP, not because the GOP refused to work in good faith with the Democrats. The ever feckless Reid et al. will try to point out that no GOP proposal or counter-offer (beyond Go Die in the Streets) ever appeared. But the media cares not for nuance, and you need to be setting up the short, two or three word rhyming drumbeat right now, every day, every hour, and every minute about GOP intransigence such that, when the time comes (and it will come), you can merely call back to your groundwork, which will seem familiar, and will almost automatically become the basis for the discussion. No Democrat should even be approaching a microphone without uttering something like “The GOP needs to Play, or Pay.”

Of course, that will not happen. And, we all know that, even if the Democrats managed to gain seats in 2010, it will be portrayed as “good for Republicans.” Everything always is.