Obama '08?

That said, I found it amusing that you both managed to agree on labelling okie an ideologue. Not that I would disagree with that.

Leave it to Mickey Kaus, a principled liberal who supports health-care reform, to debunk these structural excuses: "Lots of intellectual effort now seems to be going into explaining Obama's (possible/likely/impending) health care failure as the inevitable product of larger historic and constitutional forces. . . . But in this case there's a simpler explanation: Barack Obama's job was to sell a health care reform plan to American voters. He failed."

He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise -- expanded coverage at lower cost -- led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes and more debt. More broadly, the Democrats failed because, thinking the economic emergency would give them the political mandate and legislative window, they tried to impose a left-wing agenda on a center-right country. The people said no, expressing themselves first in spontaneous demonstrations, then in public opinion polls, then in elections -- Virginia, New Jersey and, most emphatically, Massachusetts.

That's not a structural defect. That's a textbook demonstration of popular will expressing itself -- despite the special interests -- through the existing structures. In other words, the system worked.

I thought that Obama did pretty well with HC reform. He finished with only one vote short of a super-majority, and that was because the Dem candidate in MA ran the worst campaign in history. Starting Monday, there will be another drive for reform by the administration.

Advocate wrote:

I thought that Obama did pretty well with HC reform. He finished with only one vote short of a super-majority, and that was because the Dem candidate in MA ran the worst campaign in history. Starting Monday, there will be another drive for reform by the administration.

I think rather that the election in Massachussetts had little to do with a bad campaign, but rather the fact that people have decided the Democrats and Obama's policies are terrible for the country.

Of course you think that; however, you have very little evidence to prove that a Senatorial election was actually a referendum on Obama or Health Care.

So what you're REALLY doing is projecting your opinion on to a bunch of people who you don't know, never have met, and have no reason to believe share that opinion.

Cycloptichorn

I thought that Obama did pretty well with HC reform. He finished with only one vote short of a super-majority, and that was because the Dem candidate in MA ran the worst campaign in history. Starting Monday, there will be another drive for reform by the administration.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Of course you think that; however, you have very little evidence to prove that a Senatorial election was actually a referendum on Obama or Health Care.

So what you're REALLY doing is projecting your opinion on to a bunch of people who you don't know, never have met, and have no reason to believe share that opinion.

Cycloptichorn

My opinion that I am projecting is just as valid as Advocate's opinion, probably more so. Its always easy to blame a loss on a lousy campaign. In fact, that is a big reason why McCain lost in my opinion, not because Obama is so wonderful.

So wait - do you not even see how you have contradicted your own logic here? You cannot honestly claim that Brown's election was a rejection of the Dems' ideas, but McCain's loss was a bad campaign, and expect to be taken seriously!

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So wait - do you not even see how you have contradicted your own logic here? You cannot honestly claim that Brown's election was a rejection of the Dems' ideas, but McCain's loss was a bad campaign, and expect to be taken seriously!

Cycloptichorn

I think its a combination of both. If Cokeley had run a really flawless campaign, she may have pulled it out, but there is no denying that the election was in part a referendum on Obama, after all, Massachusetts is a liberal state that he won, and a state where a Democrat should win if the people are liking Democratic policies in Washington. This is merely common sense.

after all, Massachusetts is a liberal state that he won, and a state where a Democrat should win if the people are liking Democratic policies in Washington.

[How do you know they just didn't dislike the candidate? This carries at least as much weight as the policies involved.
Cycloptichorn

Finally, those independent voters also may have gotten annoyed with her cocksure attitude, and felt they had to make it quite clear to the Democrats how they felt at this election.