Who will win the senatorial election in Massachusetts ?

@ebrown p,

Quote:

One party kowtowing to the other party isn't a way to win elections. (And, I suspect the conservatives and Republicans who are offering their "helpful" advice to the Democratic party understand this full well.)

Of course they do.

How exactly do they think it would look, if the Democrats were to 'give up' on health care? It wouldn't be good and it certainly wouldn't win any concessions from the Republican party, who has decided that they are against whatever Obama is for, and that's that.

The Dems would be better off by becoming BOLDER at this moment and invoking the Nuclear Option, reforming the filibuster - even down to 55 votes from the current 60. The opposite is a recipe for disaster this Fall.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

However, I appears clear that at least to some degree this election, together with those earlier in Virginia and New Jersey, is an indicator of some degree of likely widespread discontent with some elements of the current Administration's policies, political aspirations, or methods.

I don't believe this is clear at all, or even supported by the data. I think that, rather, this is a projection on your part.

I would remind you that the drop in support for Health care didn't come from right-wingers who decided they were against it - that was a given from the beginning. It's come from left-wingers who are angry at it being watered down, and from the lack of a strong hand on Obama's part on this issue. This isn't indicative of a problem that Americans have with Liberal ideas, or with health-care reform; but instead with the Dem's weak-ass methods, and the fact that we seem willing to have certain Senators bought and paid for by the Health insurance industry, and there's no recourse.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Where is your evidence that Reagan "resonated with the public" any more than Obama does?

I'm not arguing that point in the general terms in which you put it. Neither do I think this is a matter or issue in which either of us can "prove" his case. Both Reagan and Obama have proven themselves to be very effective in this area. However, it is clear that President Obama's resonance wasn't sufficient to stem the tide in Massachusetts these past few days. That is the issue at hand.

We all share the same human nature. Conservatives, liberals and even "progressives" all are prone to excess self-congratulation, hubris, and error. However, in particular cases small differences often make all the difference in the outcome.

ebrown p wrote:

Political battles are fought in the middle-- and what wins is, more often then not, not the idealogical dogma; but issues of leadership and integrity. It is extremely clear that Americans want leaders who can present solutions, address issues common Americans care about and clearly explain their positions.

The Democrats said they were going to reform Health Care. Americans voted them into power understanding that they were going to reform Health Care. And, they have spent the past 9 months working to reform Health Care.

Agreed. However it is an observable fact that. perhaps as a necessary political tactic, Obama's campaign on this issue was vague on key details and filled with earnest reassurances about what he said would not change. My impression is the Administration and the Democrat Congress have indeed been working earnestly for 9 months on health care - just as you said. However, I believe the details of the competing proposals; the demonization of opponents; the rather blatant payoffs and deals to industry (pharma) labor unions and individual senators; together with the expansion of government control and the inevitable spectre of more such corruption to follow - have combined to undermine whatever credit the "noble effort" might otherwise have earned them in the minds of many.

I also believe there is a certain liberal/academic naivete evident in the President's actions, as evidenced by the apparent belief that a "reset" of our relations with the Moslem world through some words of his would significantly change the underlying facts behind an historical and cultural struggle that has been building since the European colonization of the Islamic world began over two centuries ago. He seems not to understand that the biggest kid in the playground has no real friends, only temporary allies, and striving competitors eager to unseat him.

These, of course, are only my opinions. I can't prove that my interpretation is correct any more than you can prove that an alternative one is so.

ebrown p wrote:

One party kowtowing to the other party isn't a way to win elections. (And, I suspect the conservatives and Republicans who are offering their "helpful" advice to the Democratic party understand this full well.)

I fully agree. However, that doesn't mean the Democrats should simply double down on their bets in this particular instance. In a democratic system, political leaders ignore the expressed voices of the people at their peril.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

I would remind you that the drop in support for Health care didn't come from right-wingers who decided they were against it - that was a given from the beginning. It's come from left-wingers who are angry at it being watered down, and from the lack of a strong hand on Obama's part on this issue. This isn't indicative of a problem that Americans have with Liberal ideas, or with health-care reform; but instead with the Dem's weak-ass methods, and the fact that we seem willing to have certain Senators bought and paid for by the Health insurance industry, and there's no recourse.

You have delusions of grandeur on the size and impact of your left wing allies. There is no way that the left wing alone represents either the 10% drop in approval nor the 30% gain in disapproval for Health care reform since Apr. No...left wingers will basically support Obama's agenda without question to the same extent that right wingers will oppose it without question.

What you are forgetting is that vastly larger body of voters in the middle who base their votes at election time and on any particular issue simply because of their own particular economic or social situation. These are the folks that have changed their minds on health care since Apr. These are the same people which will initiate a bloodbath for Dems in Nov, if they fail to heed the message from MA and instead bully through a reform bill that they neither like nor think we can afford.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't believe this is clear at all, or even supported by the data. I think that, rather, this is a projection on your part.

That may be. It is also possible that your reaction here represents a dose of denial.

By the way, it wasn't a group of dissatisfied left wing types angry at the early demise of the public option in health care that dominated the elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

No...left wingers will basically support Obama's agenda without question to the same extent that right wingers will oppose it without question.

You're not reading a lot of 'left winger' blogs, are you? If you did, you would know that a good share of 'left wingers' do oppose Obama's agenda for being too mellow -- which is just what Cycloptichorn says.

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
I would remind you that the drop in support for Health care didn't come from right-wingers who decided they were against it - that was a given from the beginning. It's come from left-wingers who are angry at it being watered down, and from the lack of a strong hand on Obama's part on this issue. This isn't indicative of a problem that Americans have with Liberal ideas, or with health-care reform; but instead with the Dem's weak-ass methods, and the fact that we seem willing to have certain Senators bought and paid for by the Health insurance industry, and there's no recourse.

You have delusions of grandeur on the size and impact of your left wing allies. There is no way that the left wing alone represents either the 10% drop in approval nor the 30% gain in disapproval for Health care reform since Apr.

Leftists and some independents who don't think the Dems are going far enough, yeah. If you bothered to look at ACTUAL data you'd see that the vast majority of right-wingers were against it from the beginning.

Quote:

No...left wingers will basically support Obama's agenda without question to the same extent that right wingers will oppose it without question.

This has turned out to be completely false.

Quote:

What you are forgetting is that vastly larger body of voters in the middle who base their votes at election time and on any particular issue simply because of their own particular economic or social situation. These are the folks that have changed their minds on health care since Apr. These are the same people which will initiate a bloodbath for Dems in Nov, if they fail to heed the message from MA and instead bully through a reform bill that they neither like nor think we can afford.

You're 100% wrong on this one, and it's clearly obvious that you haven't studied the data too much. You're assuming that all those who have turned against the Dems on the health-care bill have done so b/c they think it's too liberal, when a great deal of them have done so b/c it's been watered down too much.

Good thing I don't rely on you guys for analysis, sheesh. It's like you've forgotten the embarrassment your party has suffered for YEARS now, and think that everyone else has too, and it's Conservative Time again. Don't bet on it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't believe this is clear at all, or even supported by the data. I think that, rather, this is a projection on your part.

That may be. It is also possible that your reaction here represents a dose of denial.

By the way, it wasn't a group of dissatisfied left wing types angry at the early demise of the public option in health care that dominated the elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

All three Democrats in those races had something in common: poorly run campaigns and weak positions on liberal issues. None of them ran as strong liberals, they all ran as wishy-washy ones (and Corzine was a joke to begin with).

The Dems' can't just expect to stroll across the finish line in this political climate, which is what Corzine and Coakley did. Deeds ran as a wishy-washy centrist and got pummeled for it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

ebrown p wrote:
Political battles are fought in the middle-- and what wins is, more often then not, not the idealogical dogma; but issues of leadership and integrity. It is extremely clear that Americans want leaders who can present solutions, address issues common Americans care about and clearly explain their positions.

The Democrats said they were going to reform Health Care. Americans voted them into power understanding that they were going to reform Health Care. And, they have spent the past 9 months working to reform Health Care.

Agreed. However it is an observable fact that. perhaps as a necessary political tactic, Obama's campaign on this issue was vague on key details and filled with earnest reassurances about what he said would not change. My impression is the Administration and the Democrat Congress have indeed been working earnestly for 9 months on health care - just as you said. However, I believe the details of the competing proposals; the demonization of opponents; the rather blatant payoffs and deals to industry (pharma) labor unions and individual senators; together with the expansion of government control and the inevitable spectre of more such corruption to follow - have combined to undermine whatever credit the "noble effort" might otherwise have earned them in the minds of many.

Well said, George....What Obama promised during his campaign was vague and very much subject to interpretation. Consequently that promise was met with much approval from all sides. However, the reality is the Senate and House bill(s) that are currently being reconciled and both of these are very unpopular. There is no stronger evidence for this than the MA election and I'm amazed that the Dems don't hear the klaxon horn screeching for them to go back to the drawing board.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo,
Your words are eerily reminiscent of the tea party movement i.e. "RINOs are the cause of Republican problems. If we only could run them out and get candidates that run on uncompromising social conservative values..."

Didn't work so well for us in NY-23 although you're welcome to try your far-left liberal candidates in as many races as you can in 2010/2012.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I know there are left-wingers who currently oppose Obama's agenda, but it's a ploy to get him to swing further left. When push comes to shove, they will buckle down like good little party members and reluctantly accept what Obama tells them is feasible.

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo,
Your words are eerily reminiscent of the tea party movement i.e. "RINOs are the cause of Republican problems. If we only could run them out and get candidates that run on uncompromising social conservative values..."

Didn't work so well for us in NY-23 although you're welcome to try your far-left liberal candidates in as many races as you can in 2010/2012.

With the difference being that my side has voted in the largest majorities in modern history into the House and Senate.

It's not as much about the liberal-conservative axis for me, as it is leadership and 'getting things done.' Liberals and independents are frustrated that the health-care bill got hijacked in the Senate and delayed for months, and for what? Nothing at all. The Dems got NOTHING out of their negotiations. It would have been far better for them to tell the Republicans to **** off and go it alone from the beginning.

'Ineffectual' is not a good adjective for a politician facing re-election.

I would also remind you that NOTHING which has been proposed, re: health-care, is 'far-left.' Like Okie, I am forced to wonder if you have any clue what that term means.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

With the difference being that my side has voted in the largest majorities in modern history into the House and Senate.

Depends on what you mean by modern history. Large majorities have quickly disappeared before and they may again. They rarely endure for long.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Liberals and independents are frustrated that the health-care bill got hijacked in the Senate and delayed for months, and for what? Nothing at all. The Dems got NOTHING out of their negotiations. It would have been far better for them to tell the Republicans to **** off and go it alone from the beginning.
Cycloptichorn

I believe the senators, both Democrat and Republican, who opposed the House bill would have a different interpretation than yours. Moreover they produced their own version which they might defend with as much energy as you give to the House version. Our system of government gives both houses of our Congress distinct voices. Would you change that?

I am not aware of ANY meaningful negotiations among Democrats & Republicans on this legislation, either in the various committes or in the full House & Senate. The Democrats appeared determined to use the large majorities they enjoy to push it all through without regard for opposing views, just as you advocate now. Unfortunately, despite their best efforts, it didn't work, The chief limitation appeard to come from within the Democrat ranks at the hands of legislators who perhaps feared that the left wing had lost touch with prevailing public concerns. Recent events suggest they may have been right.

However, I do agree with you that the current situation calls for the Democrats to either double down on their efforts or change course. It appears you want them to redouble their efforts. We shall see what unfolds.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I am not aware of ANY meaningful negotiations among Democrats & Republicans on this legislation, either in the various committes or in the full House & Senate.

This is farcical. The bill in the Senate started out great and slowly got watered down, as the 'gang of six' debated the bill in the Senate Finance committee for four solid months. Olympia Snowe et others kept dangling their support of the bill in front of the Dem's face, and then kept insisting that it 'wasn't good enough' no matter what concessions Dems made (and there were a lot).

You are 100% wrong on this one, George. Laughably so. How can you talk about this issue while being so ignorant as to the actual facts?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

With the difference being that my side has voted in the largest majorities in modern history into the House and Senate.

I'll give you this point but your side is not comprised of only those who "ran as strong liberals." Dean did a very smart thing and found Dem candidates that spanned the ideological map and were targeted to the demographics and ideology of the district/state they were to represent. Thus you have the Blue-Dog Democrats representing districts/states that voted for McCain in 2008. These are the very same individuals whose seats are now jeapordized by the far-left uncompromising slant of the current Congressional agenda (Health Care, Cap & Trade, Stimulus).

Cyclo wrote:

I would also remind you that NOTHING which has been proposed, re: health-care, is 'far-left.'

That's a hoot...and exactly how would you characterize bringing 1/6th of our economy under government control?

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

That's a hoot...and exactly how would you characterize bringing 1/6th of our economy under government control?

I would characterize that as 'not descriptive of the actual bill.' Nothing in the bill would put anything under government control which isn't ALREADY under government control.

Quote:

These are the very same individuals whose seats are now jeapordized by the far-left uncompromising slant of the current Congressional agenda (Health Care, Cap & Trade, Stimulus).

Neither the health-care bills, Cap and Trade, nor the stim package were 'far left.' Once again, I submit that you have no clue what 'far left' even looks like and really should desist from using the term.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You are confusing deal making to peel of a needed one Republican vote with meaningful negotiations on basic issues.

It was to a large degree this sort of deal making as with those with the Democrat senators from Louisiana and Nebraska, as well a labor unions, that excited so much public disguist with the program. Worse, all this stuff flew in the faces of the bland assurances of integrity and transparency that candidate Obams fed us during the campaign. I suspect that many people came to associate all of this with his emergence from the cesspool of Chicago politics and alter their impressions of many aspects of the Administration.

I can't prove this and don't wish to argue the points. However they certainly are possible and plausible interpretations of events. The coming year will tell us all more.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Neither the health-care bills, Cap and Trade, nor the stim package were 'far left.' Once again, I submit that you have no clue what 'far left' even looks like and really should desist from using the term.

Cycloptichorn

That's a little..... wierd. I get a whiff of a closet Walter Middy living in a fantasy world in which he is a figure of power and importance. Are you the designated spokesman for the "far left" in American politics?

We can quibble about how far, "far" really means. However it is clear that both cap and trade and public health care are farther left than the mainstream of American politics - if nothing else, judging by their political failures in a democratic system.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You are confusing deal making to peel of a needed one Republican vote with meaningful negotiations on basic issues.

No, I'm not. There was meaningful negotiation of basic issues in the Senate Finance committee, from the size of the bill to how it was paid for, to what it covered, who was exempted, everything. You just don't want to admit that this is true, b/c it is harmful tot he case you made. You really ought to examine the historical record in greater detail before making pronunciations such as this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Just heard a news announcement that Democrat Senate Majority leader Reid has announced that no attempt will be made to move healthcare legislation will be made until Senator-elect brown of Massachusetts is seated.

I believe this confirms the death of the current proposed legislation. Even the unlikely reconciliation process requires 60 senatorial votes to move the process forward in the face of numerous senatorial procedural rules.

2 Replies

Who will win the senatorial election in Massachusetts ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know