Obama left the healthcare wrangling to Congress rather than being hands-on, so he isn’t as tainted by association as he could be.
Yay. Now we can count of a referendum supporting Republican obstruction against anything that might be good for democrats, regardless of what is good for the country.
We can forget any kind of meaningful legislation happening for the foreseeable future.
I don’t think this was just a referendum on Obamacare - it was voters wanting to break the stranglehold Democrats have on Washington. Americans have never liked one-party rule, whether it be Republicans or Democrats.
The Democrats have been incredibly tone-deaf to the real concerns of the people. There’s a major recession, jobs are still being shed, there are still all kinds of fiscal problems, mortgage defaults are continuing, and what are the Democrats focusing all their effort on? Reforming healthcare. Something that will do squat to help the economy come out of recession, and in fact would make it worse because of the uncertainty, new taxes, and delayed benefits.
What else are the Democrats focusing on? Global warming. Cap and Trade. Regardless of what you think about the issue of global warming, the timing for the largest tax increase in history couldn’t be worse.
The stimulus turned out to be a grab-bag of handouts to Democratic constituencies more than anything else, and was far less effective than it should have been because of it.
But aside from the wrong-headed things the Democrats have focused on, the real shame is the stuff they haven’t done. For example, a big part of the government’s job is trade promotion. Increased trade would help the economy recover, but the Obama administration isn’t paying attention to trade issues at all. And when they did, it was to start pissy little trade conflicts with China, Mexico and Canada, along with angering all other trading partners with the ‘buy American’ clause in the stimulus package. The administration’s trade policy is incoherent and trade agreements are sitting unsigned while everyone focuses on health care.
In any event, I think this election sends a message to Washington that the people’s concerns are not being addressed, and the Democrats’ priorities are all out of whack. Hopefully, Democrats will get the message and put aside their big taxing plans and start working on things that will help the economy instead of hurting it.
If they don’t - if they ram through health care under reconciliation and continue pushing the rest of their agenda, they’re going to get hammered in the fall. They could lose the house completely, and wind up with only a 2-3 seat majority in the Senate.
Except the filibusters are procedural matters, not “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” ordeals.
That’s true so long as Democrats continue shutting Republicans out of the debate and telling they have to vote for everything the Democrats want or sit on the sidelines.
But there are lots of things that could get widespread bipartisan support. New trade agreements. Some modest regulatory reform. Deficit reduction measures. Modest health insurance reform. Higher education reform. Programs to help minimize real estate defaults and bankruptcies. You know, boring day-to-day good governance, instead of sweeping ideological change.
There is truth in this, your mistake is in nationalizing it. Mass voters want to break the Dems’ hold on MASS, and not Washington. For Pete’s sake, the Democrats have not done anything, but the Republicans are not brimming with fresh ideas.
In fact, there is backlash against the nationalization of the race, the assumption that Kennedy’s seat goes to a Democrat, all of that. And the Republicans trumpeting this as a national bellweather is likely to have a humbling effect on local perceptions of Brown- these folks did not vote for a Republican, they voted for a populist, and a person.
We all need to take a breath and let the voters of Massachusetts have their decision.
I agree. Conservatives and libertarians will never stand for the get-everybody-into-the-pool strategy that would make UHC possible. It would be wrong in their view to force the young and healthy to cough up some money for something they won’t need in the next six months.
We have 10% unemployment, but that’s not enough, apparently. Only if 51% of the population faces job loss and the cruel joke that is COBRA will enough voters say, “Maybe we do need a real safety net, including UHC, just like they have in Canada and Europe.” But as long as the other 90% are still sitting pretty, I don’t think it can happen.
I wouldn’t know, I’ve never seen one. You can’t just threaten something, you have to actually do it. You can’t say you’re going to run the ball, you have to actually run it, or there is no reason to defend it. Let’s see a fillibuster, I got time.
That’s the problem I have with the Democratic leadership. They simply won’t put up a fight on anything. If they had a lick of common sense they could beat the GOP in a PR battle.
What would really be effective if they called the GOP’s bluff on a filibuster would be to organize a 45,000 person candlelight vigil outside capitol hill during the night. That’s the number of people in America who die every year because they lack health care coverage.
Absolutely a referendum on the current national administration. Any suggestion to the contrary is an exercise in ignorance. A secure Democratic seat has gone Republican. Whilst it may not suggest an overall trend for November it does suggest that most of us are more comfortable withour a supermajority party.
From DailyKos, another view on what the hell happened, making the argument that state-level internal infighting among Democrats was part of Coakley’s loss:
Yeah, yeah, I know – one anecdote from an anonymous source reporting hearsay, on a Democratic blog currently engaged in thrashing about seeking answers. A stellar cite from a stellar site. 
But I have to tell you, as a Massachusetts resident, that I perceived a curious silence among much of the Democratic political structure throughout much of the race after the primary. Capuano, Pagliucca, and Khazei (Coakley’s three primary rivals), after pledging their support when Coakley won, didn’t campaign at all for her. Boston’s Mayor Menino did appear with Coakley “at a Sunday morning prayer service in Boston’s Dorchester neighborhood for victims of the Haiti earthquake.” But what I’m picking up is that any machine aid for Coakley came in a floundering too-little, too-late panicky last-minute scramble.
A perfect storm of causes led to this result – unsympathetic candidate, crappy campaign, attractive outsider, anti-incumbent anger, national issues – but if this anecdotal analysis is correct (in part, not as the entire reason), it would not at all surprise me.
Going forward? I agree with stolichnaya and Blalron on the filibuster. Now that Reid hasn’t the fig leaf of a 60-seat “filibuster-proof” majority, it’s time to make those who’d block legislation in the Senate actually get off their pasty aging butts and do it, live, before the C-SPAN cameras.
We will see in November how much of a harbinger this is, but it doesn’t look good for Dems.
This should have been the safest of safe Senate seats - it was one warmed by Teddy Kennedy’s sizable ass for the last umpteen years, for heaven’s sake. And Obama himself came down from heaven and campaigned, with the results we see. It should have been a cakewalk - Coakley was 20 p0oints up at the beginning - and wound up defeated by five percent.
Practically, it means relatively little - 59 is not that much less than 60. Symbolically, it means Obama and the Dems have (likely) lost their last, best hope of enacting their agenda. They had control of all three branches, and a filibuster proof margin. Not any more.
Again, at this point it is more symbolic than anything else, but it does not bode well for November for the Dems.
Regards,
Shodan
Do they still support Obama’s agenda or do they just like him? The right track/wrong track numbers are terrible right now. So, if it’s not Obama, then it’s Democrats in general.
I don’t think that’s right. Brown ran on being the 41st vote in Washington.
Since the pre-election thread is locked, I just wanted to address this here:
There was an interview with the MA Sec of State, Bill Galvin, on the radio this morning. He said he is going to send a letter to the U.S. Senate today, stating that Brown is the unofficial winner. He cannot certify the results for 10-14 days. However, the Senate may choose to act on the unofficial results. In the last 2 special elections in MA, where Niki Tsongas (2007) and Stephen Lynch (2001) were elected to the House of Representatives, he sent a similar letter, and in both cases, the House chose to act on the letter and swear them in to office before the results were certified.
So it will be up to the U.S. Senate leadership when Brown is sworn in, not state law.
I doubt that. Democrats get reelected to the state house with depressing regularity, even after things like drunk driving convictions and tax evasion. We’ll see in November - if the Republicans can’t get their act together and get a slate of viable candidates for the state legislature (around half of the Dem. candidates in an election run unopposed in MA) together after this victory, they may as well pack up and go home.
It was ill timed and not helpful. Reports I heard said his speech was dull and seemed poorly prepared. (By contrast, the TV ad he made got decent reviews.) Meanwhile, Brown was able to say, in effect “Look how important this election has become.”
But for Coakley it was a day late and a dollar short - to help, Obama should have been there sooner. It seems the White House was no more perceptive than a great many other about trends leading up to this election.
Well, this is what I mean. If there is normally no choice but to vote for a Democrat, wouldn’t people seeking some measure of checks and balances in their state sieze an opportunity to vote for a reasonably acceptable Republican? Even if it is a national office, this is a strong message to send and I understand the impulse. I certainly can’t speak for Mass voters en masse (ba dum bum) but I am getting this message from the several Brown voters that I know. That and, of course, Coakley was a toad on the trail.
QFT, I think. Spending your political capital on a losing Senate race is a Bad Thing for Obama. It means he’s got no coat tails, and therefore no leverage with the Dems who are up for re-election in 2010. Just the opposite, in fact - to the degree that this is a repudiation of Obama’s policies, it creates the need to distance oneself from him.
What the GOP should do is what they did in 1994 - a Contract with America, where they lay out a clear, limited agenda. Don’t know if there is a Gingrich equivalent who can put it together - maybe Newt himself can advise the Republs on how it is done. It would be a good idea to include some kind of limited health care reform package. Focus on catastrophic coverage and tort reform. Both are popular, and doable - and tort reform in particular won’t bust the budget and will actually do something about the root causes of health care inflation.
Regards,
Shodan