Special Election to Replace Late Sen. Kennedy

[ray245]

It's apparent that Brown drew a lot of disappointed Democrats and Independents under his wing. The election may provide food for thought for Republicans as well, who may reach the (IMO correct) conclusion that "conservatives" like Bush or Snowe aren't who their constituents want representing them. Brown ran on a pretty narrow platform, with one object being to block in the Senate this turd of health care "reform" bill that's been negotiated in private, Democrat-only meetings, and that a majority of Americans don't want.

Which won't happen if the Republicans did not try to block any healthcare reform to begin with.

[Guardsman Bass]

It seems that every time there is a choice between: 'real reform and a fight' and 'sewage reform and less fight' the 2nd option is taken and even defended as 'necessary' at SDnet.

You don't get it, do you. If they can't either force a bill through Reconciliation (which is by no means a no-strings-attached way of dodging filibusters), or get the 60 votes to get it out of committee, there is no national health care reform bill that will pass. Seriously, that it. Sure, they could try and fight a filibuster, but the system is heavily biased towards the filibusters - only one of them has to be in session to block the bill at a time, whereas the Democrats would have to keep a voting majority present for that one moment when they have an opening.

If the Democrats had fought for 'real reform' there wouldn't be such outrage at them and they probably would have taken this election easily.

If the Democrats had tried to do something that didn't win a majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, we wouldn't even have gotten the bill out of the Senate. In other words, nothing. You seem particularly happy at this, as if somehow "sticking to our guns" and ignoring the electoral reality on the ground will somehow .. . bring the Democrats electoral victory and a good health care bill.

At least once something is in there, history suggests that it will be very, very hard to rip out. It can be reformed in a good direction, just like how Social Security was.

What do you guys recommend progressives do (aside from bend over and take it)?

It depends on what we're aiming for. If we want single-payer, then we really should be fighting ground battles state-by-state for it, in addition to at the federal level.

Frankly, I'm wallowing in Schadenfreude (captialized for mucho emphasis) over the Dems' loss of the most prominently progressive Senatorial seat they've had over the last 40 years. To a guy who posed for Cosmo as their 1982 "America's Sexiest Man" winner, and who drives a (gasp) pickup truck!!!

In Massachusetts!?!?!?! Truly the world has turned upside down.

Yeah, he won - in a special election in an off-year (think low turnout except among the people who really, really like Brown and independents with 0.3 second attention spans and a thing for a pretty face), against a democratic candidate who deserves the nickname "Martha Chokely" for repeated gaffes and incompetence. I'll be laughing my ass off when he gets canned in 2012 (although since he likely knows this, expect him to slowly turn about-face if he actually plans on holding his seat - the guy supported the Massachusetts health care reform, after all).

It's apparent that Brown drew a lot of disappointed Democrats and Independents under his wing. The election may provide food for thought for Republicans as well, who may reach the (IMO correct) conclusion that "conservatives" like Bush or Snowe aren't who their constituents want representing them.

He drew a lot of independents, but most democrats just didn't show up. Again, special election, "Martha Chokely".

November's elections should be...interesting. So much for James Carville's "40 More Years" bloviating.

I imagine you would hope so.

[Serafine666]

Yeah, heard about the concession over the radio just as the vote hit 95%. I'm personally blown away... I had hoped for this result but believed that it was effectively impossible for a state that had Edward Kennedy as the nearest thing to a permanent member of Congress as it gets vote for a Republican who openly vowed to take down Kennedy's most cherished position. Now to see how Democrats respond to this. If they decide to be relatively typical politicians, they'll do what it takes to get their reform before the new Republican can stop them; one King Pyhrrus (which whom we get the term "Pyhrric victory") would be proud of this instinct. Otherwise, they advance in another direction and cleverly score political points against "the party of no" in preparation for the next important thing on their agenda. Either way, I heavily doubt that this victory is an automatic Epic Fail the way some political commentators believe.

[Anguirus]

It's apparent that Brown drew a lot of disappointed Democrats and Independents under his wing.

Looking at his list of positions, it seems that this is the execution of a highly successful con. I guess that's politics, but you just go right on applauding that.

[Darth Wong]

The fact that he's won in the bluest of blue states tells me that the Democrats have fucked up by the numbers and are losing voters at a rapid rate.

And you've completely dismissed the alternate explanation that the Democratic candidate ran a monumentally incompetent campaign because ...?

[Master of Ossus]

Frankly, I'm wallowing in Schadenfreude (captialized for mucho emphasis) over the Dems' loss of the most prominently progressive Senatorial seat they've had over the last 40 years. To a guy who posed for Cosmo as their 1982 "America's Sexiest Man" winner, and who drives a (gasp) pickup truck!!!

In Massachusetts!?!?!?! Truly the world has turned upside down.

Yeah, he won - in a special election in an off-year (think low turnout except among the people who really, really like Brown and independents with 0.3 second attention spans and a thing for a pretty face), against a democratic candidate who deserves the nickname "Martha Chokely" for repeated gaffes and incompetence. I'll be laughing my ass off when he gets canned in 2012 (although since he likely knows this, expect him to slowly turn about-face if he actually plans on holding his seat - the guy supported the Massachusetts health care reform, after all).

Actually, the turnout was expected to be quite high, in spite of the whether. On election day, they were talking about over 50% of the state's registered voters casting ballots, which well exceeds the turnout during the national election.

[Count Chocula]

He drew a lot of independents, but most democrats just didn't show up. Again, special election, "Martha Chokely".

Sorry, man, now I'm just wallowing in schadenfreude. Low turnout? Nay nay, WBUR say:

Turnout Continues To Be Strong Across Massachusetts
...
...In Boston by 3 p.m., 23 percent of the city’s registered voters — 88,112 residents — had cast ballots. Boston election officials predict twice as many people will turn out Tuesday as did in December’s party primaries.
...Secretary of State William Galvin predicts statewide turnout will amount to between 40 and 55 percent — higher than usual for a non-presidential election on a snowy January day.

That's not too far off from the 60.5% turnout in MA who voted for President in 2008! Not bad for a special election. Keep on smoking that "hope and change" pipe, Bass-dude; me, I'm going to crack open a Sam Adams and drink up!

To Mr. Wong: Monica Maria Marcia Martha Chokely (reference here) ran such an incompetent campaign because she, and the Democrat party in general, and especially Massachusetts' Democrat leadership, got complacent after 47 years of Chappaquiddick Man, the Big O's election, and the Dem majority in Congress. They apparently didn't listen to their base, and the voters in Massachusetts (and New Jersey, and Virginia) are making their displeasure known. The Democratic politicians' incompetence in this campaign is not an alternative explanation of Chokely's loss, but an indictment of their current policies...at least by these Mass. Democrat/Obama voters. The video's from Fox so you may dismiss it out of hand, but the comments of the panel should make an interesting study for BOTH of America's major political parties.

[Guardsman Bass]

Frankly, I'm wallowing in Schadenfreude (captialized for mucho emphasis) over the Dems' loss of the most prominently progressive Senatorial seat they've had over the last 40 years. To a guy who posed for Cosmo as their 1982 "America's Sexiest Man" winner, and who drives a (gasp) pickup truck!!!

In Massachusetts!?!?!?! Truly the world has turned upside down.

Yeah, he won - in a special election in an off-year (think low turnout except among the people who really, really like Brown and independents with 0.3 second attention spans and a thing for a pretty face), against a democratic candidate who deserves the nickname "Martha Chokely" for repeated gaffes and incompetence. I'll be laughing my ass off when he gets canned in 2012 (although since he likely knows this, expect him to slowly turn about-face if he actually plans on holding his seat - the guy supported the Massachusetts health care reform, after all).

Actually, the turnout was expected to be quite high, in spite of the whether. On election day, they were talking about over 50% of the state's registered voters casting ballots, which well exceeds the turnout during the national election.

Do you know what the breakdown of that was? That's why I qualified the statement - from what I'd been reading, turnout was really high in republican-leaning precincts as well as independent-leaning precincts, but low in most Democratic districts.

That's not too far off from the 60.5% turnout in MA who voted for President in 2008! Not bad for a special election. Keep on smoking that "hope and change" pipe, Bass-dude; me, I'm going to crack open a Sam Adams and drink up!

Hence why I qualified that statement.

The video's from Fox so you may dismiss it out of hand, but the comments of the panel should make an interesting study for BOTH of America's major political parties.

"Self-selecting" commentators aren't representative of a whole population.

[Knife]

I expect a lot of chuckles from the political right. Go ahead.

That said, lets face it, the 60 vote majority was a very shakey, very loose conglomerate of 'Democrats' and Independents who are more or less conservatives who ran Democrat for the last six years when the Dems seemed to be making a big come back and the Repubs were losing. I expect the Democratic Caucus to lose more seats from vulnerable Conservative Democrats and/or straight up loose some from jumping ship and changing parties.

That said, I don't forsee the House going to the GOP, and an iffy chance of the Senate. So... Obama needs to hurry up and cram a Health care reform down the throats of congress now, pass the crappy one and move to Reconciliation for the budget issues in Health Care to pass it with simple majority. If the Dems don't want to be creamed with fear and doubt next fall, they have to strap on their boots and get cracking.

[Master of Ossus]

Do you know what the breakdown of that was? That's why I qualified the statement - from what I'd been reading, turnout was really high in republican-leaning precincts as well as independent-leaning precincts, but low in most Democratic districts.

Evidence? And what "republican-leaning precincts?"

Hence why I qualified that statement.

By saying only the Republicans voted? Didn't we do this with Prop 1A, in California, too?

[Count Chocula]

Bass, I've been a registered Independent for the past 15 years, whose last "Bush" vote was in 2000 (and once for his daddy). Try again. Look for the "not a 'Progressive'" check box, and you'll find me there.

Knife makes a good point tactically, but I'm not convinced Obama's the one to do it. The health care bills' main activity has revolved around Reid and Pelosi (aside from the last-minute bribes via the WH). If the congressional leadership can't carry the water on the rambling, something-to-piss-off-everyone Senats version of the bill, it's dead. And the Dems are looking rather shaky right now.

[Guardsman Bass]

Do you know what the breakdown of that was? That's why I qualified the statement - from what I'd been reading, turnout was really high in republican-leaning precincts as well as independent-leaning precincts, but low in most Democratic districts.

Evidence? And what "republican-leaning precincts?"

I'm going off of Nate Silver's comment on it. He does polling and polling analyis.

Hence why I qualified that statement.

By saying only the Republicans voted? Didn't we do this with Prop 1A, in California, too?

No, I said that turn-out was highest for republican-leaning areas, independent-leaning areas, and in my initial post "people who really, really like Brown" (which includes some democrats, yes).

That said, lets face it, the 60 vote majority was a very shakey, very loose conglomerate of 'Democrats' and Independents who are more or less conservatives who ran Democrat for the last six years when the Dems seemed to be making a big come back and the Repubs were losing. I expect the Democratic Caucus to lose more seats from vulnerable Conservative Democrats and/or straight up loose some from jumping ship and changing parties.

That's more or less the truth. It's a side-effect of campaigning in conservative areas.

Ah, well. Congrats to Scott Brown, I guess. Again, I have doubts about his long term viability, but considering the way that many of the more conservative Democrats are using his victory as a way to back away from supporting health care reform (read: Evan Bayh), he'll at least be in office long enough to severely screw with things.

[Master of Ossus]

I'm going off of Nate Silver's comment on it. He does polling and polling analyis.

The cryptic statements that he appears to have made on the subject seem to be based on this, and that site puts up percentage benchmarks for various regions but doesn't talk about expected turnout. When he describes "numbers being bad" for Coakley in certain areas, I interpret that to indicate that she's not getting a large enough fraction of the voters from those regions, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about the absolute turnout or the voters who showed up.

No, I said that turn-out was highest for republican-leaning areas, independent-leaning areas, and in my initial post "people who really, really like Brown" (which includes some democrats, yes).

It's totally meaningless, though, to say "People who liked one candidate showed up more than people who liked the other candidate," when the first candidate won the election. Of course that's true. But to argue that election results aren't representative of broader attitudes requires more than pointing out that not all registered voters went to the polls.

[Guardsman Bass]

No, I said that turn-out was highest for republican-leaning areas, independent-leaning areas, and in my initial post "people who really, really like Brown" (which includes some democrats, yes).

It's totally meaningless, though, to say "People who liked one candidate showed up more than people who liked the other candidate," when the first candidate won the election. Of course that's true. But to argue that election results aren't representative of broader attitudes requires more than pointing out that not all registered voters went to the polls.

I was referring to diehard Brown supporters, but I see your point.

I'm not really interested in continuing this particular line of discussion in this thread, so I'll concede my points on it to you and Choc.

[Aeolus]

We have an AG against a man who is..

1) A teabagger.
2) In 2008, implied Obama was born out of wedlock.
3) Posed nude.
4) Voted against full paid leave for those on Red Cross duty, saying the state couldn't afford it, then voted for a taxpayer subsidized golf course.
5) Doesn't cover his campaign staff with medical care.

Oi.

As for predictions: If Brown wins, the 'centrist' democrats collectively shit their pants and immediately vote with the GOP.

Isn't that like predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow?

[wautd]

It's a pity for the really needy, but then again, you get what you vote for.

[Vympel]

Jon Stewart says it best: Democrats set the bar so low, they're tripping over it

[Edi]

There's also the problem that the democrats simply won't stick to their guns. They should simply stop giving ground and surrendering, which is what the GOP is advising. In general, the Democratic party should adopt a policy that whenever the GOP says they should do something, they do the exact opposite and fuck the predictions of doom. The GOP has been taking exactly that approach for the past 20 years and it has not really hurt them any.

[Elfdart]

David Sirota nails it, as usual:

Let me interject something in the midst of all the finger-pointing about the unfortunate results of the Massachusetts senate race tonight - something that I think has been missed in all the media punditry, activist Twittering and netroots blogging.

Various polls (here and here, as examples) have shown that a good chunk of the opposition to and/or frustration with the health care bill that played such a central role in the Massachusetts race comes from a progressive perspective - namely, a perspective that says the bill doesn't go far enough. How much that precise kind of opposition/frustration played a role in the Massachusetts race is anyone's guess - but among those that it did, my guess is that the feelings of demoralization are particularly intense, because those feelings are rooted in the most powerful emotion of all: humiliation.

After a 2008 campaign that saw Democrats promise to genuinely take on the health care and financial industries, we've seen a 2009 that has asked Democratic voters to fight for extremely small, extremely modest scraps. We've been relegated to having to mount fierce campaigns to keep things like the public option in the debate and not to stop trillion-dollar bailouts - but just make sure they have one or two flimsy strings attached to them.

We've loyally mounted these campaigns. They haven't been fun, and worse, they haven't been legislatively successful (at least not yet). But beyond the substantive failure is the embarrassment that comes with even having to mount such campaigns in the first place.

There is something deeply embarrassing about Democratic voters/groups having to fight with Democratic leaders to get those leaders to even seriously try (much less pass) even the smallest, most modest shreds of their promises. Having to do that evokes feelings of genuine shame - shame in front of the other voters we told to vote for Democrats because it supposedly "mattered," and shame when we look in the mirror at a self that may have allowed itself to be unnecessarily duped.

I feel this sense of humiliation every day I am talking to regular folks here in Colorado on the radio. As a single-payer guy, I feel embarrassed that I've been relegated to fighting for the fulfillment of as modest a campaign promise as the public option. Likewise, as a person who opposed the bailouts from the get-go, I feel embarrassed to be relegated to simply asking for a bit of transparency and regulation from a party that promised tough New Deal-like measures against Wall Street. And my guess is that - whether consciously or not - many people who voted for Democrats in 2008 feel that same sense of shame as well.

Again, I don't know if this deep sense of humiliation is what drove down Democratic performance in Massachusetts tonight, or is driving down President Obama's numbers as a whole. But my bet is it has at least something to do with it, especially because the 2008 campaign had so much to do with raising people's expectations.

That wasn't a normal election - many of us who had stopped believing in the possibilities of American democracy said we'd be willing to believe one last time. And now, seeing that perhaps we shouldn't have relented in our (rightful) cynicism, we are completely mortified.

Undoubtedly, Democrats and progressive media will attempt to make us ignore these feelings of humiliation by simply vilifying the extremism of Republicans (predictably, we are already seeing this rather pathetic tactic from various Democratic voices - save the always honest Howard Dean - on television tonight). And it is all but guaranteed that in typical blame-the-victim fashion, some lockstep Democratic activists and Obama supporters will find a way to blame progressives - rather than the politicians who broke their progressive promises - for the Massachusetts loss and the Democratic Party's flagging poll numbers. Those are the tried and true formulas to stir up the base and manufacture a supposed "united front."

But I don't know if it will work this time, unless it is coupled with - finally - a serious effort by Democratic lawmakers to legislate their promises. And even then, I still don't know if it will work. I don't know because maybe it's too little, too late - maybe the humiliation has already transformed cynicism into total and complete alienation.

How true.

[Chris OFarrell]

Jon Stewart says it best: Democrats set the bar so low, they're tripping over it

"It's not that the Democrats are playing checkers and the Republicans are playing chess. It's that the Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are in the nurse's office because once again they glued their balls to their thighs."

I love that man.

But seriously, we need to stop making surrender jokes about the French and make them about the Democrats, the are tripping over themselves to bend over in front of the Republicans and ask for another!

[Surlethe]

David Sirota nails it, as usual:
<snip>
How true.

When the fuck are the progressive Democrats going to go Teabag on the party and start putting up liberal primary candidates? How many Democrats are going to be facing an honest-to-god left-wing challenge their next election? The conditions are perfect for a vocal left wing, but instead we get the fucking teabaggers. What the fuck is wrong with us?

[xammer99]

David Sirota nails it, as usual:
<snip>
How true.

When the fuck are the progressive Democrats going to go Teabag on the party and start putting up liberal primary candidates? How many Democrats are going to be facing an honest-to-god left-wing challenge their next election? The conditions are perfect for a vocal left wing, but instead we get the fucking teabaggers. What the fuck is wrong with us?

You may not be aware of it, but liberals are a very distinct minority in the US with only 21% identifying themselves as such. Don't mistake Obama's victory as a desire for left policies. Obama ran as a center left candidate, with a drum beat of change, in a rather rare set of circumstances (economic clusterfuck, a Republican candidate that made Bob Dole look exciting, an incredibly unpopular outgoing republican president, etc...), and most of all, he ran his campaign against Bush and not against McCain. He played it perfectly. He tapped into what the real thing is, that people are sick and damned tired of the bullshit outta DC.

So don't mistake that win for America suddenly desiring a sharp dodge to the left. So take the 2008 election and last night as part and parcial of the same thing. The American people are sick and tired of out of touch politicians who aren't doing what they want. So when the Democrats threw up an obviously out of touch candidate, of course she got her ass kicked. Just like McCain was seein as out of touch and got his kicked too. Same with the Republicans in 06 and 08 in general.

Now the Democrats are feelin it too because they aren't listening either. I wasn't sure I'd ever see it in my life time, but the American people really finally did get fed up with being spoon fed shit outta DC and just swallowing it.

So again, don't mistake the country as being ready for a big left candidate, just like folks shouldn't make it as being ready for a hard right one. This is the American people just getting fed up and wanting some solutions that don't involve out and out bribery and dishonesty.

Btw, source on the Current make up of the American electorate.

[Surlethe]

You're misinterpreting my point. There are probably as many actual liberals in the US as there are of those idiot teabaggers, but the liberals don't have a strong political or media voice, while the teabaggers do. As a consequence, the teabaggers are exerting rightward political influence, while the progressives are exerting ... nothing. Or very little, at least. Where's the righteous populist anger being broadcast over the airwaves?

[Glocksman]

You're misinterpreting my point. There are probably as many actual liberals in the US as there are of those idiot teabaggers, but the liberals don't have a strong political or media voice, while the teabaggers do. As a consequence, the teabaggers are exerting rightward political influence, while the progressives are exerting ... nothing. Or very little, at least. Where's the righteous populist anger being broadcast over the airwaves?

The teabaggers don't realize it, but they were co-opted long ago as a way to deflect populist anger away from big business and the banksters and to those who actually want to fix the problems.
Meanwhile, the US Senate wants to fuck over labor yet again while prominent Democratic Senators (Landwhore, Liebdouche, etc.) say that tax hikes for the top 5% are 'unacceptable'.

I should have known the fix was in when Obama tossed out Stiglitz and the other progressive economists in favor of the same Friedmanite neoliberal assholes (Larry Summers and Tim Geithner spring to mind) whose 'leadership' got the country into this mess to begin with.

Three of the boxes are failing, but I have hope that something will turn around so we aren't forced to dig out the fourth box.

[ray245]

You're misinterpreting my point. There are probably as many actual liberals in the US as there are of those idiot teabaggers, but the liberals don't have a strong political or media voice, while the teabaggers do. As a consequence, the teabaggers are exerting rightward political influence, while the progressives are exerting ... nothing. Or very little, at least. Where's the righteous populist anger being broadcast over the airwaves?

Well, given the fact that there is no real liberal organisation( at the least one strong organisation to mobilise enough manpower) to begin with, how can anyone expect a real liberal movement to occur in the US?

With the additional fact that liberals essentially doing nothing but praying that the democratic party would bother to listen to them for once, why would the democratic party feel any inclination to become even more liberal?