How did I miss this post?????? Good lord. My college years suddenly seem dull for all the right reasons. :D

and the naive me is the one that wants the Dems to listen to the GOP and work with them, hence the dragging out while you, the GOP talking point (i know I know - youre not, youre anti-everything GOp except this [this time]), wants them to shove it down their throat. It really is bizarre.

Big stock market rally today, mostly based on big gains in heath care stocks.......

Health-Care Stocks Lead Rally; Citigroup Rebounds - CNBC

Also watched MSNBC over lunch and they were reporting heavy turnout outside of Boston, but only average turnout within the city. Democrat adviser that Andrea Mitchell interviewed said that turnout proportion was a nightmare scenario for Coakley.

Parking lot was 85% full when I got there this afternoon. Interesting that it was a mostly older bunch of voters, but still so much in not great weather conditions (snow/rain/sleet mixture)

Hooooooo, boy. Election isn't even over and Coakley and Obama camps are already pointing fingers. Neither comes off very well............

Coakley adviser memo: D.C. Dems 'failed' Coakley - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

The ironic thing about all of this is that Brown isn't particularly fiscally conservative (or at least hasn't been as a state senator). He's a guy with Massachusetts-style fiscal ideas with a social conservative agenda. Of course, he would damage Obama and be MORE conservative than Coakley, but this guy isn't exactly the dream boy for the right. That was my main reason for not voting for him.

For the record, I like Scott Brown better and hope he wins. But one of the big 3 cable news networks is a "news" network and the others aren't. I'm sorry, but hundreds of thousands die in an Earthquake and that next day is spent giving Sarah Palin a press tour on all the shows. Literally their primetime was filled with 2 hours of Sarah Palin interviews. All while one of the largest natural disasters and human travesties is taking place.

I'm not a partisian like you so I don't really care about whether an R or D wins in Mass. Brown is a pretty moderate guy and outside of his views on gay marriage, seems like he has a good head on his shoulders. Republicans will hate him in a year because he is not conservative and isn't going to be able to survive a term acting as one. In any event, I don't want one party to have a supermajority so I don't want Coakley to win.

I'm just pointing out that this has been huge news on right leaning sites/TV networks while you said the emotion was on the left which I really don't see.

Coakley will blame the Obama Administration even though her campaign didn't ask for help. Of course, asking for help requires the campaign to do something--but then again what do you expect from a campaign that didn't fight back, only held 19 events (compared to 60 plus by Brown), didnt' work for votes (and say what you will about Teddy, he worked for every vote), took a week off in a short special election cycle, and didn't bother to budget for tracking polls.

Exactly. I want her to be primaried even if she wins. She assumed she'd win. I'm not upset that Brown will win (despite believing that a Coakley win would be better), because Coakley truly does not deserve to win.

Dola--
what I find funny is that the campaign staffer trying to blame the WH wrote this memo BEFORE the campaign was over and voting had even happened. Talk about a major CYA memo.

Massachusettes FTW. I hate that Yankees guy, Schilling.

The issue is that the Republicans have made it painfully clear (filibustering on the debt ceiling?!?!! really!?!?!) that they're not willing to let the Democrats get ANYTHING done. So a vote for Brown is essentially a vote for 2 years of complete gridlock in Washington. And that won't be beneficial to anyone as we try to get out of this recession.

People who stand out in the cold to watch sports or work are schlubs.

I couldn't think of anything better than what you just described. Are you kidding? Two years of gridlock and no stupid ideas from either side? If only the Democrats weren't now the party of war this would be the greatest election result ever.

It has been my wish to have someone like Obama as president and a Republican-controlled Congress, but there is a long ways to go before that will happen. All throughout the election, I was adamant about not having a one-party govt. Mostly bad things happens when there is - namely so much more federal powers and expenditures for so little value.

Yep. I hope the tide doesn't switch too much the other way. The democrats have really bad economic ideas but the Republicans have even worse personal freedom ideas (meaning anti-personal freedom obviously) and somehow convince the Democrats to vote for them. I would love an Obama presidency with a republican congress. Outside of the wars that Clinton got us involved in I thought '94-'00 wasn't much of a disaster. And the impeachment stuff just prevented them from meddling in other areas of my life that actually effected me.

Yeah, seems the best way is a Democratic President and Republican Congress to get spending in check and the deficit down.

as an aside and back to how the banks are playing us all for fools, they sent my mom a letter stating that if she doesnt send them 'the paperwork theyve previously asked for the modification will be deemed invalid.' Well luckily my mom is one of those types who writes down every conversation, documents when things are faxed, etc. So WFC is full of shit and the stats of whom is eligible, sending back the necessary info to get a mod, etc. is total BS unless of course my mom is the one anomaly. She'll call tomorrow to find out what paperwork theyre talking about since it isnt listed on the letter and fax it over right then but she has no doubts that this is just their way of stopping the process now that the market(s) are recovering. The banks suck and if it wasnt for the fact that I feel like not bailing them out wouldve led to the 2nd great depression I wouldve set them all out to sea. Instead we save ourselves and they continue to be the awful entities that they are....that we allowed to exist as they do with no social contract at all.

And Evan Bayh is already running for the exit. Here's an idea Evan, if you think there should be different policies why don't you propose some legislation rather than just shitting on everything everybody else does.

Under normal circumstances I might agree with this, but right now the current GOP won't negotiate on anything. I don't see any chance of restraining spending or coming close to balancing the budget. They'd rather play for 2012 then allow Obama to accomplish anything.

Which one? And if you tell me its the one that has quick links on the front page of its website to let you buy T-shirts with its headlines on it, then man do they have you fooled.

I don't think there IS a cable news network. I'm not sure anyone is really interested in telling the news anymore.

Just Sayin'

That's a revenue source and I don't judge their news division for that.

But we had a major natural disaster. Perhaps one of the biggest in the modern era. They are the only network really on the ground and covering the story. Sean Hannitty kissing the feet of Sarah Palin and promoting her new show or Keith Olbermann bashing Rush Limbaugh is not news.

CNN isn't perfect by any means. Their choice of stories is questionable and they spend too much time with the talking heads arguing about crap. But I think they are much different than what you get from Fox and MSNBC. Those networks are just propoganda machines for the respective parties. CNN actually does its best to cover news in the world and not basing it on what is in the best interest of a political party.

In 24/7 news you're always going to have fluff and bullshit thrown in because you need filler. But if a major event happens in the world, CNN will be covering it much better than other networks. They have shown their superiority in their Haiti coverage which no other network has even come remotely close to.

On the other hand, a guy who knows he's probably a one-termer has a lot of freedom to do exactly what the heck he wants.

Coakley has conceded in a phone call to Brown, according to the Globe

Congrats Scott Brown, looks like. Now, one more rant..

I'm Unenrolled (read: Independent). Just because Massachusetts is one of the bluest states around, doesn't mean you get in automatically if you win the Democratic Party primary.

Whoever's going to be my Senator not only has to say what they'll do for the state I live in, or make promises. They have to back it up with action. Martha Coakley coasted through the primaries, as the heir apparent. I didn't vote there, but if I had, I would have voted Capuano. But that's neither here nor there.

So, coasting out of the primary, she decided to take a couple weeks off. EXCUSE ME? EXCUSE ME????She can't even campaign two out of four weeks? She goes off gallivanting about and leave your party hanging, let the other side write the story when the news is going against you.

They wrote the missive, they said what they're going to do, and they went out and about. They talked to the people they were going to represent in Congress. They got people energized.

And now, the day of the election, they release an attack letter blaming "DC Democrats" for not supporting them??? Are you fucking kidding me? Never mind it's sour grapes, never mind how awful that is for party morale, never mind it's your own damn fault for assuming you were going to win on a walkover..

They released that letter WHILE VOTING WAS GOING ON.

That's.. that's pretty fucking stupid.

It hurts like crazy to have done it, I'd rather see the HCR package follow through, and not be killed for another 15 years, but guess what? I can't stand entitlement politicians. "I waited my turn, and since I waited like a good doobie, I should automatically get what I deserve.."

Yeah, you got what you deserved.

A vote for your opponent from me, and a loss in the election. Congratulations, you will now forever be known as the woman who lost Ted Kennedy's seat.

According to Rasmussen exit polling Coakley won voters who decided more than four weeks ago and voters who decided in the last week. Brown clobbered her while she was largely MIA. This is nobody's fault but her own.

I don't know why anyone would assume he's a one-termer. These politics are much more local than we lead on and it's not uncommon to have Red states with a long time Democrat and vice versa. Landrieu, Baucus, Byrd, and Gregg have all managed long tenures in states that swing the other way. I'm sure there are and have been more over time.

And lets not pretend that he's going to be a conservative. Brown is a Republican but he falls farther to the left than guys like Tester and Webb. If he was running in a Red state, he'd be considered a Democrat. Democrats should be upset but if Republicans think they have a guy who is going to be conservative, they are in for a surprise. He's going to do what it takes to make his constituents happy to survive in 2012.

Cant wait for the GOP's HCR package. They did say the current system is broken right?

Give the pharmaceutical companies a few weeks to put it together.

How exactly is he going to do that? He doesn't have the ability to propose legislation and he doesn't control any committees. If he starts to bargain with the Dems he'll get teabagged and his big money donors will dry up. I'll guarantee he'll vote with the GOP 95%+. There's not much freedom for a pol with ambition when he's a first termer in the minority.

And yes, the same would be true if he were a Dem in MS in 2002.

btw- WV was recently a safe Dem state and NH was a safe GOP state. Those switches are recent and IMO both will be swing states in the next three or four presidential elections. WV would have been a swing state in 2008 if Obama were white.

I find this to be very interesting and encouraging. In a state that is known to be solid Democrat/liberal/blue, a majority of the registered voters are not D or R. That sounds like a typical Western state where Independents always have ruled.

That's because Unenrolled means you can vote in either side (R or D) primaries.. if you declare D or R, you can only vote in those primaries.

Which, I believe, is unlike the West where yo cannot vote in either primaries if you are not registered as a D or R. Which is why I have never voted in a primary since I was registered in California in 1978.

I'm considering celebrating tonight's election news in a way that ol' Teddy would appreciate: by getting drunk. But I promise not to drive if I do.

I heard a Brown quote where he talked about not voting for health care reform as it stands, but did not say he wouldn't vote for it in any form. Think how he'll be labeled a turncoat, traitor, Benedict Arnold & RINO when he gets some concessions (that will probably make it a better bill) and it then passes.

Coakley ran maybe the worst campaign I have ever seen. The only thing she didn't do is show up in a Magic Johnson jersey and start a "J-E-T-S, JETS! JETS! JETS!" cheer.

Oh I also look forward to the GOP's support in the Senate of a bill....any bill.

LOL. It is almost too perfect. (Not perfect in the panerd is an asshole hoping for this, but perfect in the 41st senator elected at the last minute from liberal Massachusetts seems a little fishy) I wonder if this is just all part of the machine running things and making people think they have some say in a government that is basically run by a handful of individuals whose power we can't even fathom. I am still sane enough (for now) to realize this isn't the case but god damn it really wouldn't shock me anymore.

Not any fishier than a Congressional district in NY that had been a Republican seat since the Civil War voting in a Democrat. It is hard to compensate for horrible campaigning.

Smart man here. The Democrats need to regroup and restore some feeling that they've even listening to their constituents at this point. Stopping all health care legislation until he's seated would show that they're not trying to force anything through solely because they're about to lose their supermajority.

On to Plan C - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

So if there's a parallel to 1993/4 here, does that mean big wins for the Republicans in 2010 and then Obama getting blown a few years later?

Yeah, this is the best "gridlock" I've seen.

I'm not here to defend Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, but if you don't think the pressure from W Bush (home ownership for everyone) and the Barney Frank/Charlie Rangel "Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac needs to give loans to everyone - including people with no chance of paying it off in 4 years" crowd seriously impacted the loan/housing crisis you are crazy. People were getting 300K houses on $600 sub-prime mortgages overseen by the above politicians. Both parties are guilty of looking the other way here, but let's not pretend it didn't happen.

Why are you saying 'smart'...just a little while ago you were saying they should shove it through? Not trying to talk about the rest of your spin but I'd think you wouldve picked a different word considering your rhetoric from a week ago (pre-mass election).

everyone has a role to play in that debacle including the banks, appraiser, originators, borrowers, etc.

Unless he's trying to run for national office.He actually does have a base (nobody nationally is picking up on it, but he won this by destroying Coakley on the South Shore while everywhere else fell as expected - Live Massachusetts Election Results - NYTimes.com ) but if the Dems had run even a competent politician, or had there not been 3 men who split the vote in the primary and Coakley won by default because of the votes she garnered as the only woman, he still would have lost. Even the exit polls are showing that Coakley won when she was campaigning, even the last week when all her gaffes were occurring and negatives were being trumped up. Basically, the only way that Scott Brown wins in 2012 is if jobs haven't recovered and he rides a national wave of anti-Democrat sentiment that puts the GOP back in the majority in the Senate. Mitt Romney and Bill Weld were popular statewide figures and neither came close in their Senate races against a normal Democratic campaign - Romney even lost by close to 20 points in 1994.

Romney wasn't just running for Kennedy's seat, he was running against Kennedy himself. Big difference.

Yes, but Coakley had close to a 20 point lead coming out of the primaries as well.

Since that was only about a month ago, that to me points to a horribly run campaign more than a referendum on anything else.

One interpretation from a libertarian-centric op-ed (our local paper)

That's a good piece but do have a few issues with it.

The talk of free markets is good in some areas. We should make it easier for companies to compete across state lines and we should have a lot of options available. In a sense, less government is good there. However, the health insurance industry has a way of seeing the big companies eat up the small ones. You may open up competition for a few years but the biggest companies will just buy up all their competition. You just end up back where you were with a handful of options (all massive companies).

You also can't have a completely open free market with health insurance. No insurance company would ever cover a person with a pre-existing condition. Many wouldn't bother covering older people. So it's a nice setup if you're young and healthy, but if you don't win the genetic lottery, you have no options whatsoever.

And then the biggest problem is that regardless of these changes, we will still have to pay for those without insurance. You can't have a society where hospitals can turn ambulances around or decide they don't like you insurance company that much that you'll have to drive a few hours elsewhere for that emergency treatment. With that said, someone has to pay for those people and it ends up being us. So we still need to find a better option for those who can't get health insurance because we pay for it one way or the other.

I also don't think you can have any reform without opening up the fucking borders. It's insanity that we have to pay so much more for drugs. Time for other countries to start footing the bill for these drugs. All this talk about free markets from the right and they want to restrict business because they get a shitload of money from Big Pharma.

From what I saw & heard, her biggest problem was when she would show up and open her mouth. Maybe they were onto something by keeping her as far away from the public as possible. It's difficult to believe she would have done worse if she had smiled, waved and wore a Ted Kennedy campaign pin.

Sure, it was a horribly run campaign. She ran it like she was Kennedy himself, not needing to meet people or introduce herself. But, still, you're comparing apples to oranges. Sure it was 1994 with a similar political climate, but to say that Kennedy won because of a good campaign instead of a bad one does not come out of this. There won't be a 32-year senator running for re-election next time either.

I hope that this is a wake-up call to the Dems. There have been a lot of people put up for election recently who were either prime Peter-Principle candidates or were simply not ready to be thrust into the positions they were. Brown beat her because she was a horrible candidate.

The whole Schilling comment is perfect to describe her problem. She tried to be more than she was. Under the full context of the conversation, she was commenting on how she didn't think it was right for Brown to have Rudy Guilliani stumping in Boston for him, considering he's a Yankee fan. She should have then admitted to "not being a huge sports fan & said that being more concerned with the problems of the state than the score of a game, so long as Boston wins. Oh, and if he pals around with Yankee fans, birds of a feather..." She'd have come off better & might be a new Senator.

She's only one of several weak Democrat candidates. They better wise up. As they have just found out, showing up sporadically & shooting yourself in the ass doesn't win many elections.

I think the better parallel is to 1982, a big year for the Dems as Reagan was still saddled with the economic mess left by his predecessor.

The Romney/Kennedy campaign was fascinating to watch. Romney should have been able to beat Kennedy at his low ebb, but shockingly Kennedy attacked from the right, calling Romney soft on crime. Romney went from a lead to a blowout in about six weeks because he couldn't find an answer to Kennedy's attacks.

The big pieces in HCR, especially the Senate version, all fit together like a puzzle. If you want to eliminate pre-existing condition discrimination and spending caps the only way insurance companies can survive is with an insurance mandate. Since there are people who can't afford insurance on their own, some level of subsidies have to be provided, which means revenue has to be created to pay for them.

It was both about Coakley and Obama. Coakley did nothing to get the liberals out. No one was enthusiastic, not even with the stakes being what they are. Independents and Republicans, however, were as enthusiastic in this state as I have ever seen. It was really a perfect storm.

And I totally buy that this feeling will continue into the midterm elections nationwide. There IS a lot of anger out there at the government, and you cannot ever underestimate the Democrats' ability to shoot themselves in the foot.

Stewart was great on this on Monday, by the way:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mass Backwards
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Yes, because if they wait and go back to the table this time the GOP Lucy will let them kick the bipartisan football.

This is good from Talking Points Memo:

Thinking that this is not about the Democrats' agenda and is only because of what Obama was saddled with is whistling past the graveyard.

We already pay for it though. When an uninsured person ends up at the hospital, it's being tacked on to our bills.

And of course, you've misrepresented my original point. I shouldn't be surprised.

My original point as Mustang so aptly summarized was that the Democrats needed to 'shit or get off the pot' in regards to health care. It was a point that several of the more liberal posters agreed with at the time. Yesterday, my point was brought into even better focus when reading SirFozzie's posts regarding his frustration that nothing had been finalized and now the Democrats and their HC reform bill were going to the Congressional bill graveyard.

I certainly appreciate your anger and frustration given the situation, but the fact is that my analysis which you attempted to paint as a contradictory statement was actually spot-on in pointing out the real need for Democrats to start working together with members of their own party to get resolution before it was too late. They didn't do so and now they have put themselves in an extremely tough position with declining public support on multiple fronts.

Agreed. It's exactly why I said that Senator Webb's earlier comments were the words of a smart man. There's a time to defend the party line and a time to realize that defending that party line would cause you to miss the clear and present threat to your agenda and your political party. Democrats have to change their approach or they're going to get destroyed in November.

Feedback from some of the voters presents a clear picture of the discontent..........

Massachusetts Voters in their Own Words… | TQIA - Turning Questions Into Answers

Yes, because "I voted against it after I voted for it" is a powerful political message.

People hate Democrats when they don't get anything done. The only hope of salvation is passing the Senate bill, defending the popular aspects and then moving to box in Republicans on small popular issues ala Clinton.

You say salvation. Most say political suicide without solving the problem at hand.

Who votes for a party that spends a year saying "This is important", but when there's a small setback panics and gives up? That's what independents want? People value conviction and resolve.

If the GOP had the White House, the House and 59 Senate votes they'd abolish the top marginal rate, teach the value of enhanced interrogation in middle school and rename California "ReaganFreedomLand".

Political power is fleeting. Get some shit done, stand behind it and let the chips fall where they may. If moderates want a different legislative agenda start writing and proposing legislation and stop bitching about your own uselessness.

As a Massachusetts moderate independant that has voted Democrat in each senate election in the 10 years that I have lived here, Scott Brown's win tells everyone much more about Martha Coakley then any referendum on health care or Obama or the current senate as a whole.

I'm not a fan of the current health care legislation that has been tossed around the past few months, but in Massachusetts it really isn't a big concern as we already have state mandated health care (really the way that I feel health care should be handled instead of nationally anyways). So the big issue for us really is the jobs and economy right now.

That said, I don't think that is why Brown won. I think he won because Coakley ran perhaps one of the worst, least inspired, most assuming campaigns that I have ever seen. If there was a new presidential election tomorrow, I would bet Obama would win Massachusetts easily as always.

Except I don't think health care is what the people voted for.

Three reasons I think people voted for Obama:
1) Hated Bush and the atmosphere in DC, wanted a new face and new ideas (don't think you will ever solve this, not even Obama)
2) Hated the war in Iraq, wanted to pull the troops out of the Middle East. (which isn't happening)
3) Wanted ideas like gay rights and universal health care (Obama isn't even close)

While a lot of people can rightfully get upset about #3, my guess is most of his votes were for 1 & 2 and nobody voted for that junk Senate bill that they are trying to cram through. Hence the elections that have happened the last few months and if things don't change the elections this fall.

I haven't heard a single good explanation how abandoning a year's worth of work that has been sold to the public as a priority will benefit the Dems in November.

Passing healthcare may not help win elections, but abandoning it will certainly hurt.

And you misinterpreted my emotions. Im not surprised.

Im the one who wants them to work together on this stuff. You are not. Brown winning might be the best thing to happen to a guy like me IF, and only if, the GOP will start true discussions on how to make this country better since theyve admitted that things are broken as they are. I look forward to their bills and support of, well, anything.

I was watching the ABC World News Tonight show last night and they had some reactions from people coming out of the poll. There was a couple in their 60s that came out and both said that they were going to vote for Coakley as of a couple of weeks ago, but when the Kennedy family got involved, they said 'the Kennedy's are going to tell us how to vote' and switched to Brown. If the Kennedy family had not got involved, they both said they'd be voting for Coakley.

True. When it comes to elections, Obama doesn't fuck around.

Y'know, "broken" does not automatically mean increased government involvement to fix.

I'm not sure what benefits Obama at this point. All people care about right now are the economy, jobs and trying to get out of this "funk". Universal health care is nice in theory to people, but a lot of people have health care - but are worried about losing their job or getting wage freezes/fewer hours. So, while it is something I think many people wanted when he was elected, the focus of the public has shifted to just keeping their job at their current pay rate.

For a football parallel, it's like Team Obama came out knowing that their opponent had their top CB hurt and no pass rush. So, they setup a gameplan to throw downfield on things like health care, cap-n-trade and other initiatives. However, at halftime, we see the backup CB is actually Darrelle Revis and the opponents are blitzing like crazy and sacking the QB.

He needs to change up the gameplan to focus more on getting confidence in the economy - which isn't an easy thing. IMO, things will get better in the next 2 years, but I'm not sure that will help this fall.

Obama could reduce emissions/carbon by 30%, redo health care to provide coverage for 90+% of people and significantly improve public education over the next 6 months - yet no one will care if we're at 10+% unemployment and there's uncertainty over the economy. Improvements there are the only way people will feel better about Obama and the democrats in general - and it won't be easy.

Two thoughts on the MA-Sen election:

One: If there is a trend to be found here, it is as Cam suggested much earlier in relation to GOP wins in Virginia & New Jersey: good Republican candidates who run on competency/common sense/check book issues defeat Democratic candidates who run lousy campaigns. This is a wake-up call (and it's a bit sad that it's needed) to Democratic candidates that they actually need to campaign, and they need to address issues that matter to their constituents (i.e. jobs, the economy). A great example will be whomever wins the Democratic primary in Illinois for Obama's old Senate seat (Burriss is not running for re-election) and goes up against marketed-moderate Republican Mark Kirk. If that candidate runs a campaign like Coakley did, they'll lose to Kirk, regardless of how Blue Illinois is or how much Obama will campaign for them.

Two: If every GOP candidate in the 2010 midterms is as good and as moderate as Scott Brown, then the Democrats are in real trouble (more than they are already). But given the growing influence of the Tea Party in GOP politics, I'd say that's somewhat unlikely.

Arles: I think you're right about the economy. If there's no uptick in employment 2010 will be brutal regardless of what congress does. But let me throw out another analogy. The Dems have already gone all in on HCR, folding now before drawing the last card makes no sense at all.

Killing HCR now won't win any votes in tough districts and it will kill the enthusiasm of the base. I happen to think it's good policy, but just at a tactical level Dems have to get this passed or they'll rightly be killed for being ineffective crybabies.

I think this is a great point. We're in a far worse situation, economically, than 1992, when both Clinton & Perot ran on platforms that focused almost exclusively on the economy. If the Democrats want to stave off losses in 2010, they need to convince people they're working to solve this (and convince people that the GOP aren't). And if Obama wants to win in 2012 he needs to convince people there's a turnaround afoot (if such a turnaround isn't obvious, like it was in 1996). Pretty much everything else is window-dressing, electorally.

Honestly, it's pretty unfair to Obama what is going on. When he was elected, the landscape was significantly different. It's even worse than 9-11 and Bush in that atleast Bush had an initial unified front on Afghanistan and some leeway. Obama is dealing with a brutal economic situation and half the country basically wants him to fail (or atleast isn't giving him the benefit of the doubt).

It's why I would never want to be president. He's going to be judged by things he has very little control of over the next 6-9 months.

If there isn't a real turnaround by 2012 there's no messaging that can win the election.

Yep. I'll note that from the 2002 elections to the 2006 elections the GOP controlled Congress with much smaller margins than the Democrats do now, and still got a lot of their stuff done and it is this, amongst other factors, which contributes to disillusionment amongst Democratic voters.

True. In that case the best Obama can hope for is that the GOP nominates a complete loser as its candidate.

Ah, pot odds. A good way to justify pursuing a losing proposition.

Isn't that how the last three elections have been won?

Exactly. Which is why the people predicting doom for Obama shouldn't count their chickens before they hatch.

The difference is that even Kennedy himself didn't take teh election for granted. He worked for every vote, held events, and worked to win.

I simply said it was a better parallel, not that it was the only reason. And let's not forget Clinton abandoned his agenda before getting hammered in the 1994 midterms.

Okay. Explain to me how abandoning a bill they've already voted for and spent a year telling the public was essential will benefit them in November.

edit: And since you were earlier using the stock market as a measure, what does it mean that the Dow is down around 200 today? I presume investors are panicking because of the potential for GOP obstruction.

No question about it. I totally agree, which is why I pointed it out.


Because a large majority of the public was already telling them months ago that it wasn't essential. No one bought it. Cutting their losses at least shows they've figured out what the American public has been saying for months, which is much better than the other alternative.


I wasn't using it as a measure. I was pointing out the rise in prices yesterday. The Dow as a daily measure of events is horribly overrated. If anything, it shows how the professionals can easily profit off the emotions of idiots.

oh, and only to show how silly the Brown Stock Market Rally comment was by the pundits lets take a look see at the market today...

well there you go. Nice call Horace.

The partisanship is stiffling in here...

Anyway, who cares if they all pinned their trailers to the HCR bill... at some point I wish our supposed leaders would actually stand up and do the right thing. The right thing is killing the shit out of this insanely stupid, and in my opinion borderline evil, bill. Stop playing the pansy ass political appearances games, grow some balls (or ovaries) and make some legislation that solves a damn problem, and if the Republicans filibuster you, fuckin embarass the hell out of them with legislation that is so common sense popular that to stand against it would be digging your own grave in the midterm elections.

Screw this opinion of 'stick with your guns' or 'we need a supermajority'... these damn wussy cover your ass politics are why the economy stays on the edge of depression, we are in two wars we don't need to be in, and the only thing coming out of our government is selling away more of our freedoms/money/sanity to toady up to corporate who will give them cushy do nothing jobs after they are voted out.

And how many months have people in this very thread and in other forums of dicussion been saying that the Democrats should do exactly that? There's nothing partisan at all when you're preaching to the choir. As you note, that's common sense and the Democrat leadership is the only one who apparantly didn't get the message.

Article discussing how the early seeds for this mess were planted by the administration and predicted by liberal bloggers months ago..........

Peter Daou: Liberal Bloggers to Obama and Dems: We Told You So

Honest question since I've stopped paying attention as closely as I used to. What does the Tea Party stand for other than lower taxes and less government? On that point they would seem to have popular sentiment behind them (not on how far they go, but on the general idea). How is their increased influence at the expense of the "religious right" going to result in fewer moderate candidates? Perhaps it was because it was Massachusetts or because national people weren't interested or involved until late, but other than Coakley trying to make the hospital rape slander stick social positions weren't even mentioned. It was jobs, government spending, and "elitism" from out of touch politicians - which (regardless whether you think their ideas are correct for solving them) would seem to be the Tea Party's talking points.

I think that depends on what you mean by "Tea Party".

If you're referring to the one that ran Charles Jay for President last election, their platform is a single sentence

Thing is, not every "tea party" (small letters) protest was organized by the same group. Actually I think in at least one case there's been a lawsuit over the rights to the name at the state level. And when you get to the individual groups then it seems extremely wide-ranging as to what constitutes a platform or even what their key issues/talking points are. I mean, you've got your flat taxers, your secessionists, your anti-immagrationists, anti-bailouters, and so on & so on.

To be honest, it kinds of reminds me of the wide variance in what gets tagged with the libertarian label. In Georgia, for example, for years they were basically known for having NORML members who didn't have much to talk about beyond that and on the other hand you had the Neil Boort'z libertarians that cropped up occasionally & over the past few years more frequently (but then that's kind of co-opted at times by the flat-taxers).

Problem is, I believe a lot of tea partiers are Republican break-offs and have quite conservative personal views...meaning they want less government unless it has to do with marriage, butt sex, gay adoption, abortion, etc. I mean, aren't we all for less government and less spending?

I agree. I personally think the Democrats should have and should go much smaller and incremently change health care. This "one big bill" is just never going to pass the muster of the people.

So my suggestion for them is to create a bill with two things in it. Pre-existing conditions and portability. Nothing else. Say these are two things we want to fix with the health care system. Then dare the Republicans to vote against it.

Those issues are probably two of the ones that are actually popular with the public. I bet you they could have gotten this particular thing passed last year and Obama would have had a feather in his cap to say "hey, we did change something that is a big deal and we'll work on changing more". The all-or-nothing approach is just too bloated and too scummy to pass the public's sniff test.

The tea party thing was never a Republican thing when it started. It was Ron Paul supporters. A group of people I would never consider interested in politics before but interested with this guy. The Republican Party lambasted Paul and his supporters relentlessly during the primaries.

After losing the election, Republicans tried to tie themselves into that and have effectively taken it over and destroyed that original message they had. It used to be about Ron Paul and small government and now it's just anti-Obama people giving themselves a label. The people claiming to be tea party people now are not for small government (despite what they say) and are just Republicans hijacking someone else's succesful vehicle and destroying what it was originally intended to stand for.

You can't do pre-existing conditions without a mandate and you can't do a mandate without subsidies. Eliminating pre-existing conditions without a mandate kills the insurance industry.

Some of this isn't possible piecemeal.

Here's a good take on the fecklessness of the Dems in Congress from a Senate staffer posted at Talking Points Memo:

There is already a mandate more or less when it comes to group health insurance policies which make up over 80% of the health insurance industry. This would just be for the rest. It would increase the price of private plans and put them more in line with group. The insurance companies would survive just as they have with other laws mandating coverage on group plans.

The insurance company will not be killed, it will just adapt. They had their chance to work with government on a plan that would help cover more people and chose to send out bullshit statements about death camps to scare people. You fuck with the guy in the room with the big stick, you get whacked.

If there's no pre-existing condition exclusion I know I'd drop my work insurance and reinstate it or private coverage if I got sick. Even if I don't get the money the company would have spent on the plan I'd still save about 350$ a month on my co-pay. What would stop millions from doing the same thing without a mandate?