The Affordable Care Act came with a lot of baggage (as similar plans had been advocated for decades by various proponents), and President Obama was arrogant and dismissive of any need for Republican buy-in (telling them they could take a back seat). CHIPS seems much less divisive, though it seems stalled (at least based on recent statements by Intel and other CEOs).
> […] and President Obama was arrogant and dismissive of any need for Republican buy-in (telling them they could take a back seat).
That is not accurate:
> Not only were Republican senators deeply involved in the process up until its conclusion, but it's a cinch that the ACA might have become law months earlier if the Democrats, hoping for a bipartisan bill, hadn't spent enormous time and effort wooing GOP senators — only to find themselves gulled by false promises of cooperation. And unlike Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's semi-secret proceedings that involved only a handful of trusted colleagues, Obamacare, until the very end of the process, was open to public scrutiny.
> We feel a tap on our shoulder and we look back, and who is it? It's the Republicans. And they say "Huh, excuse me, we'd like the keys back." And we have to tell them "I'm sorry, you can't have the keys back if you don't know how to drive". If you want you can ride with us but you have to ride in the back seat.
Further context: Oct. 22, 2010, in Las Vegas on behalf of Sen. Harry Reid's re-election campaign.
As a sibling comment notes: the Democrats had the majority at the time and were in charge of setting the agenda ("had the keys").
Further, Obama was willing to give the GOP a (figurative) ride if they wanted and were heading in the same direction.
Similar situation with the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) - it was opposed not on its merits, but because it was from the opposing side.