I assume this OP fits in GD, but if not, I’m sure it will be moved.
I am a Canadian and have not really been following domestic US politics. I read a report today (in CBC online) that the reason the GOP won yesterday’s vote for the Mass senator was that in the US “people are angry” (? at Obama).
My question is, if the above statement has some truth, with what, or at what, are people angry? As much as possible, please try to be objective and above partisanship. As I said, I come into this quite ignorant and am looking for a disinterested take on things.
There is very widespread and serious opposition to the health care reforms at the top of Obama’s agenda. This is probably the most controversial issue in USA politics at the moment.
On the right, there are of course many who are angry at the real Obama just on general principles, in the same way they spent eight years being angry at Bill Clinton; and many others who are angry at the imaginary Marxist socialist Muslim left-radical Cloward-Pivening Obama who (yes, even now) lives in their heads. Both sets are present in every state to some extent and, in Massachusetts, both could be counted on to vote for Brown, again on general principles.
On the left, there are many who are not so much angry as disappointed and frustrated that Obama has, since taking office, turned out to be no leftist or even liberal at all, and not much different from Clinton. Faced with a choice between center-right Brown and center-left Coakley, many of these saw little to choose and stayed home.
Again, some of this opposition comes from those who oppose HRC of any form or version on principle; and some from those who don’t feel the bill now being threshed out goes far enough, because they want a public option in it. There are many of the latter, in fact probably a majority; see here.
It is the war, of course, especially the Afgan part of it. We know Ben Ladin is no longer there and we are just rebuilding a moslem nation with our tax money, and for what? He claims our national security depends on bushmen in Afghanistan, people know that is nonsense and want the war ended. We saw this effect in Vietnam, with nothing there to win they would not leave till voted out. People with this recession know we need to use our money at home.
Oh yes - the SDMB is renowned for its calmly dispassionate take on US elections.
Unemployment and the deficit are extremely high. Obamacare will be extremely expensive, and will not cover everybody. Nor does it address the root causes of health care inflation.
Democrats have been in control of Congress since 2008, and Obama has been in the White House for a year, with a filibuster-proof margin all that time. We don’t have HCR, Gitmo is still open, etc.
I don’t know if people are “mad” per se, but a fairly large majority feel the country is on the wrong track. Traditionally, Presidents (other than Bush) lose seats during mid-term elections, but it appears at least at the moment that this effect is going to be particularly severe for our beloved Obama.
Anger is born of fear. They’re just one notch apart. People who have not lost their jobs are afraid they might, and lose their homes and medical coverage along with it.
Anger is also born of frustration. Deeper polls generally show a feeling that Obama and Congress have not gone far enough in fixing the system that has created their fear, and instead have given in to the same Big Corporate Interests that got us into this mess in the first place.
56-57 Senators does not constitute “filibuster-proof”. But you knew that already, right?
Oh God yes. No other issue, not health care, not the wars come close when the official unemployment rate in the US is 10%, but in reality it’s much higher.
When Obama took office, he continued the bank bailout program that began in the final months of Bush’s term. $700 billion was set aside to the banks who were responsible for this recession while next to nothing has been done to help actual people. The president claims 2 million jobs were “saved or created” by his stimulus program, which is a very vague claim to make, and since the federal government has a history of lying about jobs numbers, there is every reason to believe Obama is full of shit when he said this.
And 2 million jobs is only a fraction of the number of Americans out of work. The anger over the economy and the bank bailouts is huge and the government hasn’t done much to address these concerns. Obama voted for the bank bailouts, believes it was the right thing to do, and has publicly defended them, so he didn’t use the anger to rally his supporters. So the anger has turned against Obama, who so far has shown more concern for banks than out of work Americans.
The biggest worry people have over the health bill is it’s requirements that everyone must have health insurance in some form, which will force a lot of people to purchase private insurance or get in trouble with the the IRS. Many people are having a hard time making ends meet and are very worried about the government forcing them to buy expensive insurance they can’t afford. The people who should have benefited most from reform might get screwed big time and the Democratic leaders who are pushing this bill through aren’t doing much to alleviate those worries.
I think a lot of people are angry at the “fat cats” being bailed out and we’re left with shit. The Dems happen to be in power, so they get a lot of the anger focused on them. If the Pubs were in power, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they were the focus of the anger.
I agree that it is the Economy. The economy hasn’t improved yet - it has arguably become worse for many people since Obama took office. Quite simply, if it doesn’t improve much by November then the Dem’s are going to lose a lot of seats in the senate and house. If it still hasn’t improved by Nov 2012 then Obama is gone.
If, however, the economy improves substantially by summer/fall of 2012, then he will be reelected and probably gain some seats back. Regardless of anything else, this single factor will lead to his success/failure.
American politics are really quite simple when you break it down.
Yes – but I recall reading (can’t find the cite right now – maybe it was on this board, but I forget whether in GD or BBQ Pit – there are so many Massachusetts Senate Race threads going right now) that Republican turnout was roughly what it was in the 2008 election, while Dem turnout was only 60% of what it was in the 2008 election. That’s still a “high” total for a special election.
When the housing bubble burst it took a shaky economy with it. The solution was an expensive stimulus bill that was rushed through in a process that involved large scale pork barrel spending. It didn’t solve the economic situation and the process was superseded by outright vote buying of legislators for the health care bill. The State of Nevada was given an exemption on taxes in the proposed bill as well as certain union workers.
Since an expensive stimulus bill was rushed through with no effect people don’t want the same thing to happen with health care which is a far more permanent venture.
Also, getting more benefits for your constituents |= personal bribe-taking. But that’s how Landrieu’s and Nelson’s deals for LA and NE have been portrayed by the Loyal Opposition.
