Wow. Obama won the state by 26 points. Ted Kennedy, liberal icon, held that seat for over 40 years. No Republican had been elected to the Senate from MA since 1972. Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-1 there. And yet, the newest Senator from the Commonwealth is GOPer Scott Brown. Gone is the Democrat supermajority in the Senate, and very possibly ObamaCare.
The recriminations began in earnest well before the polls closed, as Democrats assembled in their circular firing squad. I’m not sure if this will lead to other Democrats jumping ship on Obama’s agenda, or more early retirements, but this is a pretty big deal. I can’t imagine how the vote isn’t a referendum on what is happening in Washington, DC.. Martha Coakley was a poor candidate and ran a bad campaign, but this is Massachusetts. I know Democrats will be inclined to minimize it, as I would in similar circumstances, but if people were pleased with the direction the country was going in there’s no way she doesn’t win in a walk. Am I wrong? Maybe this man is right?
Update- Senator Jim Webb:
In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.
Raising the white flag on ObamaCare? He’s likely not the only one.
And before I forget, here is Jon Stewart commenting on the Massachusetts race Monday night. Stick with it, as he is none too pleased:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mass Backwards | ||||
|
||||
#1 by zen on January 19th, 2010
| Quote
Brown deserved to win. He worked for it. Good for him. It was Coakley’s to lose, and she made pretty well sure that she did.
Massachusetts has a history of electing many Republican governors, so it’s not an entirely foreign concept. It is a pretty big deal in historical term for the seat Brown takes, but I’m not convinced that it’s wise to view this as a crystal ball for predicting the future.
Is it a message about health care? Not sure. Massachusetts actually requires, by law, residents to obtain health insurance coverage—passed by Republican governor Romney.
As for Bayh, I just don’t see the argument about a “far left takeover of the Dem party.” How? Foreign policy? National Security? No way. Shooting Pirates, Sending troops to Afghanistan, Not closing Gitmo. etc. Economics? Nope. It was a Republican president that said, “Without immediate action by Congress, America can slip into a major panic” as it pushed a $700 Billion bailout. I just don’t see it.
If Congress was so amped to go “left” and pass health care, wouldn’t they pass it just like Republicans did Bush’s tax cuts…with a simple majority?
#2 by zen on January 20th, 2010
| Quote
…and what Jon Stewart said. Bravo.
#3 by James Smith on January 20th, 2010
| Quote
“I just don’t see the argument about a “far left takeover of the Dem party.” How?”
Zen, That is the single most ignorant thing I have ever read on any blog. I hate even legitimizing a statement that far out of touch with the world but…
We all know Democrats are worshiped not for their actions but for their words. Take Pork Warner for example, he has never on any occasion been a fiscal conservative, but he says he is so he is automatically worshiped and adored as one. The Messiah said he was closing gitmo so that means its closed now to the liberal world. Look at gas prices, everybody was outraged two years ago, but Obama said he was going to take those profits and fix prices. We all know he lied, but not a single Democrat is angry about gas prices anymore. No daily AP stories about oil company profits, no more angry liberals writing to the DNR about it.
“It was a Republican president that said, “Without immediate action by Congress, America can slip into a major panic” as it pushed a $700 Billion bailout.”
That Republican was unpopular with the right because he governed left of center most of the time. I know the cult leaders told you to be outraged about him because he was a far right fundamentalist, but thats just silly. He was unpopular because he was acting like YOU GUYS!.
#4 by megan on January 20th, 2010
| Quote
“Is it a message about health care?”
No, zen, it isn’t. It’s a message the the people in Massachusetts like trucks. Martha didn’t have one and thus she was a poor candidate. And she was clueless about baseball.
That’s all.
It would be unfair to think this says anything about Barack Obama, his agenda or health care.
#5 by Anon on January 20th, 2010
| Quote
According to Rasmussen, who conducted the only exit polling I’m aware of, 56% said health care was the biggest factor in their vote. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/massachusetts/brown_wins_stunning_victory_in_massachusetts
And Bayh wasn’t specific at all in his remarks, so I’m not sure what he’s referring to. He voted for ObamaCare, and the stimulus I think, so I don’t know. But, in VA, NJ, and now MA independents abandoned the Dem candidate en masse, so what explains that? Are they just fickle?
I’m surprised at how deflated the Dem base has become just a year into Obama’s term. Not only did a ton of them stay home in MA, 20% or so of the one’s that didn’t voted for Brown. Obama campaigning for these candidates has made no difference, though he remains personally popular.
#6 by Anon on January 20th, 2010
| Quote
Someone else apparently did exit polling, too: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31708.html
48% in that one said health care was the single most important issue in their vote.
#7 by zen on January 20th, 2010
| Quote
I just want to note that the admins on this site are highly critical of other sites’ perceived ‘loose-cannon’ commentors, and yet bring nothing to bear for the ones that infest these posts. Why is that?
#8 by zen on January 20th, 2010
| Quote
“I’m surprised at how deflated the Dem base has become just a year into Obama’s term.”
I’m not. American’s have notoriously short attention spans. The marketing push behind the Obama brand was huge, and very grassroots. That same level of organization, or enthusiasm is clearly not carrying through. I don’t think that’s absolutely defined by Obama, rather a large number of factors.
Amid widespread angst at the ‘establishment’ the party in power is even more vulnerable than normal. This is not an approval of Republican ideas (what are Republican ideas anyway?), so much as their default benefit of being the alternative. They are not popular—by far. Much of that same anti-incumbancey added to Obama’s victory.
VA & MA had poor Dem candidate-campaigns. No enthusiasm to get people out working. Brown in Mass, was in the trenches and clearly worked hard—much harder than Coakley.
And yes, it appears health care reform fears helped bring people to the polls. However, in a state that has such a progressive health coverage policy, and in a seat that had a well-loved, man who’s life’s work was health care reform, it’s naive to assume that all of a sudden the state’s voter’s made a 180 against those very goals. In my opinion, all other factors combined carried more weight with MA voters, than the prism that outsiders tend to jump to as a conclusion.
#9 by Anon on January 20th, 2010
| Quote
Oh, I agree that these results aren’t indicative of great affection for the GOP or any specific counter policy proposals. The “brand” is still very much damaged (McDonnell, Christie, and Brown all downplayed the big “R”, the latter two especially.) Indies clearly aren’t happy and just went with the alternative.
In regards to the Dem base, is it largely disappointment that more hasn’t been done? Or that the agenda isn’t “progressive” enough? For people to go all out for Obama in the fall of ‘08, then to kinda sit on their hands and not do what they could to support those who would help his agenda just a year afterward, is odd to me. I don’t think the same happened to Bush in 2001-2002, though that isn’t a fair comparison because of 9/11. And by ‘06-’08 he’d already been in office awhile, so the anti-incumbency thing is understandable. I guess historically it isn’t such a strange thing, but no candidate in awhile had created so much enthusiasm as Obama did, so that makes the contrast that much more stark.
#10 by zen on January 20th, 2010
| Quote
I think Both. The more progressive Dem base is pissed that even with a 60 vote majority they’re not accomplishing more. Especially when the Republicans seemed to do more with less. Democrats have a tendency to be scared of their own shadows, and somehow everything is good news for Republicans. The message isn’t do less, it’s do more.
In terms of comparisons, Republicans didn’t fight Bush’s agenda much. Ever? They earned the rubber-stamp label by giving him everything, so much so that he largely forgot what a veto was. On the other hand, we now have a Dem majority that (despite the bizarre fantasies of a few commentors here) are champs at infighting. All Republicans have to do, it seems, is stand out of the way, and let the Dems squander and screw up all on their own.
I think that the economic pain created during the Bush administration didn’t fully manifest until well into Obama’s first term. So the perception is that it’s of his creation, rather than recognizing that steps taken have actually pulled us back from the brink of a depression. So deep was the damage that it’s not going to change on a dime. This perception is what drives the tea-bagger movement, which is certainly not in line with the wider, tangible reality. So, it just stands to reason that the shine has worn off pretty quickly from candidate to president.
#11 by Anon on January 20th, 2010
| Quote
Its fascinating in a sense, because in Nov ‘08 Democrats trumpeted how America had embraced their agenda. Yet, when given the opportunity to vote on that agenda the same Democrats become very skittish. If you saw a huge majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate as a big mandate, why not follow through? What’s to be afraid of? Regarding the GOP under Bush, you’re right, though amnesty, Harriet Miers, Soc Sec reform come to mind as instances where Republicans did put up resistance.
Impatience and the ‘what have you done for me lately?’ attitude certainly contributes to voter angst.
#12 by zen on January 20th, 2010
| Quote
This schism, as well as the Tea Partiers on the right, fully enforce my opinion that we to move beyond a two party system.
#13 by Phil Chroniger on January 20th, 2010
| Quote
I’ll agree with you there, zen. We need to move beyond the current two-party system.
Also, I’d be inclined to believe that Tea Partiers are also centrists who want to see “good government” as well as conservatives. The Tea Party movement is actually bigger than either party, so I wouldn’t call them “the right”.
#14 by seth on January 22nd, 2010
| Quote
“I just want to note that the admins on this site are highly critical of other sites’ perceived ‘loose-cannon’ commentors, and yet bring nothing to bear for the ones that infest these posts. Why is that?”
i’ve seen you ask this in a couple of places and while i see your point, i do think it worth mentioning that one of the sites in question is pretty well accepted to be a sounding board for some of the most moralistic perspectives in that particular party, and the other is supposed to be considered a mainstream, officila party website.
in short, there are probably a lot of reasons the local republican party doesn’t officially sanction blogs like this, of which i’m sure political acuity is not the least.
#15 by Rocktown Rebel on January 24th, 2010
| Quote
The sad truth is how irrelevant this whole story actually is. What matter is it if your hangman has a blue cloak or a red one?
Hopefully all this tells about the general public is that those among the working-class who banked on Obama have become demoralized enough over the past two years to realize how fruitless it is to participate in electoral politics. Sadly, though, I think far too many workers are willing to buy into the right-wing delusion once again, now that the left-wing delusion has been shattered.
Americans need to develop a stronger collective memory. Historically, politicians have done nothing but screwed the workers over, be they left-wing politicians or right-wing politicians. It’s time for us to realize that neither wing of politics represents our interests, and that we need to create social projects outside of, and in conflict with, the political infastructure.
#16 by James Smith on January 26th, 2010
| Quote
“Americans need to develop a stronger collective memory. Historically, politicians have done nothing but screwed the workers over, be they left-wing politicians or right-wing politicians.”
I agree completely Mr Rebel!
#17 by Lowell Fulk on January 26th, 2010
| Quote
The sad truth is? That you both are working so hard to convince other people that the American form of electoral government is a failure… rocktown rebel and james smith could very well be the same person. Your messages are both meant to make people not involve themselves. Both of you… Both of you… You both make me sick. I, and people like me from many aspects of governmental philosophy work hard to let people know they can have an impact and make a very real difference, and the two of you, from seemingly different aspects of the political spectrum, give those who trust you and your judgment, the exact same message…. That any government or people who join together cannot be trusted and are evil…
My message to the both of you? Fuck you. Unlike you, I believe in the people around me…
#18 by Phil Chroniger on January 27th, 2010
| Quote
The enlightened truth is…I agree with Mr. Fulk above me to a certain extent.
He and I certainly disagree on what the appropriate size and scope of government should be. However, the basic form of our government, as outlined in our constitution, is as good as you can get (in my opinion).
I personally believe that much of what some believe should be facilitated by the government should actually be facilitated by the private sector/non-profits/charities/etc…, but that’s a matter of philosophy.
However, I do believe that people can come together and make a positive difference. So I have to back Lowell on his basic premise here, even if we have philosophical differences on how government should be run.
#19 by James Smith on January 27th, 2010
| Quote
Lowell, you seem to be very angry. Perhaps we could discuss this in person face to face.
#20 by James Smith on January 27th, 2010
| Quote
Phil, My comment was by no means intended to call into question our system of Govt. I was merely pointing out that both parties are very self serving. So very few folks agree with me on that I got a little excited when I saw somebody else saying that. I’m not 100% sure if that is really Lowell that made that comment. I have heard he is a classy guy so it may not have really been him. However, we all know the rage and venom that goes through Democrats when they feel liberalism is being “disrespected.”
#21 by Phil Chroniger on January 27th, 2010
| Quote
Oh, any political party is going to be self-serving to some extent, I can agree with you there. It’s the nature of the beast. Lowell is usually civil, but he is capable of being riled up if you catch him at the right moment
#22 by James Smith on January 27th, 2010
| Quote
” Fuck you. Unlike you, I believe in the people around me…”
I believed in Pork Warner, and look how that turned out for me…
#23 by jeff on January 27th, 2010
| Quote
Fulk do you use that kind of language at church where you pretend to be so pure ?
#24 by Lowell Fulk on January 27th, 2010
| Quote
James,
Should you like to meet in person to discuss face to face I would be more than willing. My email address is lowellfulk@activist.com and my cell # is 540-820-2592.
My sincere apology to Megan and Anon for using language they don’t like. As much as Megan and Anon and I may disagree however, I don’t recall ever either of them stating the opinion that a person’s vote doesn’t matter. But the apology is to Megan and Anon alone. I meant what I wrote.
#25 by Lowell Fulk on January 27th, 2010
| Quote
Jeff,
Why don’t you tell me about my church and how I represent myself. I’m very interested…
#26 by James Smith on January 27th, 2010
| Quote
Lowell, I was simply making a comment to that rocktown guy and it had nothing to do with you. The thing that is most telling is that had I said Bush or McCain or Mcdonnel was a low life bum you would have beamed with pride. That fact is though, you took something I said as a knock on your messiah and you had a break down. Here is a news flash Fulk… Most folks believe politicians put themselves first!!!!! Only mindless stupid worshipers think otherwise. You need to grow up and understand that those who tell you what to think can and will be critized. You can’t always fall apart and lose your mind whenever you witness dissent against the DNC. (although as I said, I was making a broad statement, I wasn’t referring to just your holy leaders). Having said that, I do plan though to give you a chance to look me in the eye and repeat what you wrote. I will be in touch.
#27 by James Smith on January 27th, 2010
| Quote
Megan & Anon, I apologize as well. As you know I have never attacked anybody on this blog, and I was only commenting on a third parties comment when Lowell got liquored up and had a melt down. I have always treated Lowell with respect, and regardless of his childish antics, I would continue to do so.
#28 by Lowell Fulk on January 27th, 2010
| Quote
Waiting for your effort at contact James… I’m not hard to find.
#29 by Lowell Fulk on January 28th, 2010
| Quote
Oops, I must be doing something incorrectly. I honestly thought I had posted my contact information for James but it’s not here, so I’ll try again:
lowellfulk@activist.com
540-820-2592 cell
I don’t know what may have happened, sorry about that.
#30 by Lowell Fulk on January 28th, 2010
| Quote
Did someone mistakenly delete what I had posted?
#31 by Phil Chroniger on January 28th, 2010
| Quote
Lowell, I see it in post #24, and then you reposted it in #29. It’s still there in both places.
#32 by Lowell Fulk on January 28th, 2010
| Quote
Thanks Phil, I don’t know what’s up. Must be something I’m doing wrong.
#33 by Lowell Fulk on January 28th, 2010
| Quote
And Phil, please send me an email. It can be from an anonymous email account if you like, I’m not trying to expose anyone, but I would like to send you an invitation to post on RockDem. Whatever you like. We might not agree always, but I do like your process of thought.
#34 by jeff on January 28th, 2010
| Quote
Fulk how about Cherry Grove United Methodist Church.
#35 by Lowell Fulk on January 28th, 2010
| Quote
I’m afraid your information is old Jeff.
And I’d like to thank James for giving me a call. I look forward to discussing things with you in person.