To Anyone in MassachusettsFollow

Either of those options are risky though. I know you've stated the position that health care is so important that you don't care if a the Dems lose the House and/or Senate in the process, but I doubt very much that most of the folks sitting in those seats will agree.

The gap in votes in the House based on differences in the Senate Bill make that route problematic at best. A bill that both agree on will almost certainly not work if Brown is actually sitting in the seat. The Senate Bill would require 60 votes, and they aren't going to get it without essentially re-writing the bill from scratch. I suppose this route is possible, but would take months to do cleanly. If they push to do it before Brown takes his seat, the damage done to the Dem party will be massive. Trying to use reconciliation requires that only budget specific issues be on the table, which may not be sufficient either and would require that massive amounts of both bills be stripped out.


The effect of this win by Brown is much larger than just the one vote and its relevance to a filibuster. It's a ringing bell warning every single Democrat, who's been toeing the line out of party loyalty that their seats are in danger. The effect on the House in particular will be dramatic. The only way this works is if almost every single Democrat in Congress doesn't care about their seats and is willing to lose it to pass health care. I doubt very much that this is the case. I'm sure the leadership will push for it, but I foresee defections.



While this is largely being seen as a referendum on health care, the issues at stake are broader than that, and I think it's a mistake to underestimate it. The Left has been ignoring and ridiculing the growing dissatisfaction with the policies they have been pushing. Calling the TeaParty movement "teabaggers" is just one example. What this election shows is that they made the mistake of believing their own propaganda. That by pretending these growing number of upset people were just radicals, and were small in number, and didn't represent mainstream America, they convinced themselves that they didn't matter and weren't relevant. This election result shows just how much of a mistake that is.


The Obama administration and the Dems in Congress will have to completely rethink their entire political strategy at this point. They've discovered that their agenda isn't really resonating with the people. And "the people" isn't just some crazy fringe righties being exaggerated by Fox News. The people includes large numbers of independent voters in a state which has historically voted Democrat. If the voters there are so clearly more in agreement with the position of the TeaParty people than the Democrats currently in office, what does this say about voters in far less "liberal" states like Ohio, Kansas, and Missouri?



I agree to this. It will be a pity. However, the pity is that the Dems choose a form of health care "reform" which pushed their farthest left agenda rather than actually fixing the problems with the current health care system. They could have included Republicans in the discussion. They could have stuck to changes which everyone could agree on and which didn't push a far left or far right agenda. But instead, they went with using the issue of health care as a lever to push for a socialist change which the public has overwhelmingly rejected.

The pity is that the real problems with our current health care system probably will not be addressed. Of course, that horse left the barn months ago. Their bills didn't fix those problems either. They just made them bigger and put government more in charge. That's part of why the public rejected it so soundly. It was obvious to most people that the greatest "change" going on here was making bigger government, not actually helping people get better and more affordable health care.



Can I make a wild guess and say that "years" means "since 2006"?

You'd be wrong but I'll certainly admit that the massive increase in the use of filibusters since 2006 has heightened my distain for the practice. The fact that the last couple Senates have broken all records and doubled the number of filibusters from the 2005-2006 Congress to the 2007-2008 Congress means that, just maybe, people can think there's a real problem with it without resorting to partisan reasons.

Or, put it this way: I'm saying we should reform it now, knowing that the Democratic majority won't last forever. Will you be as embracing of the concept when the GOP has 51 votes in the Senate but needs 60 to pass anything but the most banal of legislation? Because I assure you that the GOP is creating a status quo here, not an exception. I may not agree with the "correctness" of that but it's the truth.

Looks like the people have spoken.

Explain that.

51% of the registered voters (who make up about 50% of the eligible population) of MA did. Good turnout for a "special" election with 1 race & three names on it.

I state again, barring Coakley getting the Democratic nomination again, I do not see Brown getting re-elected.

I agree, him running for prez in 2012 would repeat the same mistake we made in 2008. An untested candidate with almost no experience getting into the white house.

edit: on a related note people also need to talk about Palin running for prez. That's another reason I voted against McCain, Palin had less experience than Obama (and I figured McCain would die in office). Palin has even less experience as she doesn't even have a political, judicial, or managerial position at all right now. Not to mention as she doesn't actually have any intelligence and very little education.

As for Brown getting re-elected, it's a long shot, but he served his purpose. For that, I'm happy.



Edited, Jan 20th 2010 4:45am by thrashering

Gosh, you just can't stop talking, can you? No, what these results mean is that Coakley ran a horrible campaign and Democrats were complacent. Dissatisfaction is growing, sure, but the candidate was bad. EVERYONE agreed; the Democratic party just thought it didn't matter. That was their downfall. It sounds like you're saying MA is a red state now. No... it's really not.


The

It means that they cannot take anything for granted. Face it, the supermajority got them cocky, and they're going to pay for it. The "political strategy" of which you speak is actually you saying "they can't pass healthcare reform," and I don't see why you need to phrase it as anything else.



For the last time, no, you're wrong, as has been shown here time and again. Healthcare reform is a partisan effort because the Republicans chose to have no part in it. They CHOSE not to. They were invited in, and chose not to join. Their efforts will likely pay off because of this election, which sucks, because they've said that any reform proposed by the Democrats is bad reform... because it will help the Democrats. And what kind of far left agenda did they push? I see no public option, which was what SHOULD have been included but was thrown out.


As for the election itself, well, I'm fine with democracy working. Scott Brown was a better candidate, ran a fantastic campaign, and deserved to win. I don't agree with his views, especially him supporting a gay marriage ban amendment, but those issues weren't how most of MA voters chose. It was because he was the better person for the job, and although the national repercussions will suck, the better candidate should win.

Also helps that I'm not a Democrat :-P

Edited, Jan 20th 2010 8:18am by LockeColeMA

Good news for you! We won't tax your winnings, just the interest you make off of them.

Hatred smells worse, and you stink of it :)

I missed it when Obama was the candidate for senate in MA; could have sworn it was Coakley. She had a horrible campaign, and was not a good candidate. The Democratic voting machine didn't bother to get invested in the race until far too late because they figured it was a sure-thing. That was their downfall. Brown did a fantastic job raising money and coming out as the "good guy." In fact, he used Obama's technique of promising change to win favor (granted, his changes are in fact keeping the status quo, but it resonates anyway).

Again, I agree that Scott Brown was a better candidate and ran better. I don't think he accurately represents the state at all, but he'll serve his purpose, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until he starts doing stupid sh*t like voting on a gay marriage ban amendment to the Constitution. At least he's pretty!

He's talking about how Obama fared in the Presedential election in Mass. I know he speaks a lot of gibberish, but that wasn't all that difficult to understand this time.

I agree with your second paragraph. The first, I still seem to be missing your point (or you're missing mine?). I'm saying the Obama wasn't the candidate here; Coakley was (and I'm pretty sure Varus doesn't even know her name). Thus, Varus focusing on Obama misses the actual candidates completely. The results of the 2008 election were all fine and dandy, but really had jack-all to do with this election.

TLDR: Obama wasn't a candidate in this election, but Varus wants to think he was and lost.

Edit: That is not to say that the Democrats got screwed in this, because they did. I'm just saying there's more than the president as a reason for it, and Varus cannot see that. I think he's still angry we have a black president and wants to undo 2008. That's just conjecture on my part, however.

Edited, Jan 20th 2010 10:28am by LockeColeMA