Boom! Is It All Over For Obama?
So there goes Mass of all places and, with it, perhaps health care. And maybe the Obama presidency. Or maybe not.
Here are a quick few conclusions I draw from this spectacle:
– We knew all along that the Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008 owed in great part to rejection of George W. Bush and a bankrupt Republican Party more than it did to a pro-active love for Democrats.
– The election of Barack Obama did not heal the racial divide in America. He merely and temporarily bridged it because he was, indeed, an inspiring alternative to the crumb-bum Bushies (and that includes a dottering McCain and a wacky Palin). But as soon as elected and the shine was off, the racial divide widened up again led by those strange creatures known as “independents” ( i.e. basically conservative white folks who look upon politics the way hotel guests view room service).
– Once in power, the Democrats garishly demonstrated their inability not only to enact meaningful, swift and profound reform but also revealed a basic inability to provide leadership on any major issue.
– The person of Barack Obama remains one of great integrity and intelligence but he has clearly erred in too closely following a Clintonista strategy embodied in such dubious characters as Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers.
– Obama conceded way too much power to a feckless and literally corrupt Congress. He pandered to such dolts as Baucus and Lieberman instead of going to the Hill early on and sternly warning his delegation that he was elected on a mandate of real change and real change is what he wanted and wanted NOW.
– The principal cause of the Democratic defeat tonight and in previous by-elections has nothing to do, whatsoever, with Obama trying to do too much, moving the party too far to the left (as the mindless pundits argue) nor in any specific policy decision per se. It owes primarily to a 10% unemployment rate ( really a 17% rate) and tremendous economic insecurity and fear. The economic recovery program was, in fact, a necessary evil for which Obama gets too little credit. But it was insufficient and has done little to nothing to touch the lives of ordinary Americans.
– The wallowing around of congressional Democrats and the lack of clear strategic leadership on the part of the White House opened the door to the absurdity of a zombie-fied and discredited Republican Party being able to pose as the challengers to the economic elites. Rather fantastic. But not wholly baffling. After all, when you cut the sort of deals that the Dems have with Wall Street and Big Pharma like those we have seen the past year, it makes it all too easy for the Republicans to look like pitchfork populists.
– He might be a font of conventional wisdom but this time around Howard Fineman hit it out of the park when he said: “Obama took all his winnings and turned them over to Max Baucus.” Amen.
– This isn’t the end of the world as we know it, but it’s a 7.0 political earthquake. Please don’t mistake me for someone who gives two s…s about the Democrats. I gave up on them ’round about 1965. But I do deeply resent that they make me and everyone else around here live in a country that can’t meet its great potential and that must suffer the further indignity of spending most our time living under Republican rule.
– My best guess is that the Democrats will now fold on health care. The House might pass the Senate bill as is, which would be better than nothing, but I doubt there is enough political courage to go forward. After the euphoria of last year’s election it might be hard to believe that exactly one year after Obama’s inauguration the Democrats will give up the ship. Yet, that is exactly where the smart money should be tonight.
– The only succor I get from this debacle is that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the DNC have perfectly met my dismal expectations. It’s an unfortunate way to be right. But better it is to be validated than to be heart-broken.
– Josh Marshall, bless his soul, has offered up in quick and dirty form, a proposed way forward for Barack Obama. It’s a nice idea:
The central problem the president is laboring under is the fact that the economy remains in a shambles. And unemployment remains at a toxic 10%. Beyond that though the Democrats are suffering because they have shown voters an image of fecklessness and inability to deliver results at a moment of great public anxiety and suffering. Big changes provoke great anxiety, especially in such a divided society. But Democrats are not just having dealing with the ideological divisions in the country — which is what the Tea Party movement is about. They’re also losing a big swathe of the population that is losing faith that the Democrats can govern, that they can even deliver on the reforms and policies they say are necessary for the national good. As I wrote earlier, this is about meta-politics. If the Democrats, either from the left or the right, walk away from reform, they will get slaughtered in November. They’ll get it from the people who want reform, from the people who never wanted reform and from sensible people all over who just think they can’t get anything done.
What the Democrats — and a lot of this is on the White House — have done is get so deep into the inside game of legislative maneuvering, this and that ‘gang’ of senators and a lot of other nonsense that they’ve let themselves out of sync with the public mood and the people’s needs.
The president needs to find way to say, we’ve heard you. We’ve gotten so focused on working the Washington channels to get this thing done that we’ve lost a sense of the public’s mood and urgency. Well, we’ve heard you. We’re going to stop playing around and get this thing done. And then we’re going to work on getting Americans back to work. We know the urgency of the moment and we know you expect results.
I’ve written this quickly. I would not consider it a polished version of anything the president should say. But I think the gist is right. This is the biggest testing time the president has yet faced. It could be a key turning point in his presidency. Over the next forty-eight hours the president is going to come under withering pressure to walk away from reform. It’ll come from the left and the right, and in various different flavors. It will come from shocking directions. The president is going to have to find a way to say, No. We’re doing this. He’ll need to stand down a lot of cowardly and foolish people in his own party. He’ll have to stand down the vast and formless force of establishment punditry and just say, No. We’re going to do this. And he’s going to have to make the case to the public, not necessarily convince all those who have doubts about health care reform but make clear that he thinks this is the right direction for the country and that he’s going to make it happen.
We’ll see. Meantime, I would be buying some health insurance corporate stock.
January 19th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
My wife wants to move to her native Canada, and my sister who moved to Chile 2 years ago, praises el nuevo momio. Consolation: being contrarian is more fun, I guess.
January 19th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
An overarching problem here is that this is simply not a liberal-minded country, and the way this manifests itself is that the public lets the Republicans get away with murder, while insisting that Democrats play by the rules. For instance, Republicans can abuse the filibuster and Senatorial holds and generally act as a government in exile without fear of any consequences. I don’t mean to excuse Democratic Party cowardice and incompetence, but this is one of the root causes, as it were. It’s like the war in Iraq — for years the illiberal public punished the Democrats for being the peace party, and so now when they want a peace party they don’t have one.
But suppose the Republicans do take over again; what makes anyone think it’ll be any different than last time? When people vote for Republicans thinking they’re going to stand up to the banks and Wall Street, what are they going to do when they see how they’ve been duped? The ultimate weakness of Republican governance is that it creates a system of winners and losers in which the number of winners becomes fewer and fewer as time goes on. Eventually it will come to a point where it requires that people be good sports about losing. How likely do you think they are to do that? Can you expect them to be illiberal with themselves?
January 19th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
I think Obama had two choices going into the presidency. Either risk taking on the elites by going after Bush / Cheney, the banks and insurance companies (even leaving aside the generals); or else make peace with the elites and hope that the contributions big business makes to his campaign, together with a light-weight reform agenda, will be enough to make up for the loss of support he will inevitably suffer among his base.
Obviously he chose the latter option, and this Senate election just highlights the risks involved in such a small-ball strategy. As has been mentioned elsewhere, Coakley could have run on a pro-choice, anti-big banks populist platform, but instead was forced to mould herself in the image of Democratic orthodoxy and flip on the Stupak amendment while currying the favor of big business. The result is that people voted for a “naked man with a truck” (as John Stewart described Brown) instead. I think Obama is going to be in big trouble, because people just aren’t willing to give him the benefit of the doubt any longer.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
congress will pass the senate bill unchanged, no? they all have too much to lose not to. health care will become popular the second it passes. america loves a winner. unemployment dips under 9 percent. obama defeats romney/brown. tiny american flags for all.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Oh, I can think of another thing.
Which happens to be the main thing.
Martha Coakley ran a dreadful, totally tonedeaf campaign in a state where independents far outnumber Democrats, a state which elects Republican governors.
And Scott Brown ran a very good campaign.
There’s a good Democratic campaign in Massachusetts, there is no whining tonight.
That’s the fact.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
I draw the same conclusions, the Democrats are hopeless and will likely draw the wrong conclusions and move further right thinking they can win back the independents. They take labor and the left for granted. And we, the country, suffer. Any hope of future growth depends on large scale investment to create jobs and smart growth, education, etc — and without real pressure from labor and other social movements, NOT Teabaggers, nothing will happen. The Dems really are the party of Capital but they have to pretend they represent their base, ordinary working Americans. Obama doesn’t appear to be running the show. Now he’ll have to start leading with his strengths, but all the people around him will be giving him the opposite advice….
January 19th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Bill Bradley: yes. of course. Coakley was a disaster and the Mass. Dems gave it away.
Hillel: Mebbe. But I dont think so. Looks tonite like House will back down on health care. That doesnt mean than Republicans are ascendant. I dont think they are. And while 2012 is a long time from now, Obama will be odds-on favorite. But what will be accomplished in the meantime is a very open question.
Suzi: If the Dems represent “capital” doesn’t Obama also represent “capital?” Why not take labor and the left for granted? There is no left. And there is no labor movement independent o the Democratic Party. The Democrats blew it for sure. BUT….if “the people” want some real change the way you define it, they will have to speak up. Anyway, the decisive factor isnt labor. It’s youth. And it’s up to them.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:19 am
It’s up to youth, labor, community, everyone to demand more, we all know that. That’s what “made” Roosevelt enact the New Deal. Would that Obama use his proven mobilizing and inspiring potential!
January 20th, 2010 at 3:57 am
The charming, seemingly competent new trail boss led the wagon train up a box canyon. Getting the damn thing turned around is going to be interesting, and might take a few days. But gosh, that trail boss is so darn charming, it CAN’T be his fault.
January 20th, 2010 at 3:58 am
And no, Arlen Specter is not considering a party switch.
January 20th, 2010 at 4:57 am
Robert Fiore: “Eventually it will come to a point where it requires that people be good sports about losing.”
I’m afraid that’s already the case.
I don’t know that the country is a illiberal as you say, but there is clearly too much apathy and ignorance and lack of strong leadership in our politics for there to be real progress.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:12 am
Marc: “– The principal cause of the Democratic defeat tonight and in previous by-elections has nothing to do, whatsoever, with Obama trying to do too much, moving the party too far to the left (as the mindless pundits argue) nor in any specific policy decision per se. It owes primarily to a 10% unemployment rate ( really a 17% rate) and tremendous economic insecurity and fear.”
Many of us on the right dear friend, continue to hope and pray that you continue to believe this, that the remainder of the Democrats continue to believe this and that Obama never learns differently.
This is an out right rejection of Obamaism and in three elections (NJ, Va and now Mass.) What will it take for the left to admit that in Obama they fell down and worshiped an empty suit, and one that really doesn’t know how to do what they want done?
January 20th, 2010 at 6:18 am
There is still the win in upstate NY.
It would be unwise to count one’s chickens . . .
January 20th, 2010 at 6:48 am
I think the pundits need to beware of trying to draw too many conclusions and generalizations from the MA loss. That said, I think Marc is right about the general fears of most/much of the electorate. Remember, before any conversation gets started, frame it with this fact: we are still suffering the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Let it sink in before you start to speak. And then think about what questions have crossed everyone’s mind since 2008. Here are three:
1) Is my job safe?
2) Is my healthcare safe?
3) Is my retirement safe?
What is interesting to me is that enough MA voters were sufficiently comfortable with their answer to the second question to vote for someone who will be responsible for derailing any healthcare reform. A cynical–but plausible–explanation is the “I got mine” approach: MA gives me universal-ish healthcare, so that’s enough reform for me, thx! Either way, the first question is likely on all the MA voters’ minds. How precisely they answered it is another matter.
Senate race aside, I’m not so sure much really changes apart from the loss of healthcare reform (for now). It’s silly to argue that Obama has been governing from the left: if anything, he’s gone the route that most center and center-right presidents would have gone in an economic collapse: first and foremost, save the banks. Was this the right decision? Eh, probably, but it certainly was the safe one (i.e., the one that banks and business wanted). The irony is that the extreme right “Tea Partiers” use the same anti-bailout language as the extreme left. Some part of me wishes the bailouts never occurred, the banks collapsed, bazillions more jobs were lost, nest eggs were obliterated, and everyone could then realize just how much hinged on the bailouts. One grand (and ugly) system reset. Curiously, it’s possible things would turn out better in the long run, but not for the reasons the “Tea Partiers” and other anti-bailouters think.
Instead, what we’ll see is a long, painfully slow turnaround. When will jobs recover? When markets and investors (China, too!) are convinced that U.S. private debt is under control. Again, not public: PRIVATE. Obama’s done what he’s had to for emergency stabilization, keeping banks solvent. Now comes the gradual de-leveraging and cleansing of toxic debt. Then, finally, jobs. Of course, when middle-class Americans start connecting the jobs and healthcare questions again, healthcare reform will be back on the table.
January 20th, 2010 at 7:30 am
Marc: health insurance stock might be a good bet, but the smart money is in pharmaceuticals.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5e1424c4-05af-11df-88ee-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
January 20th, 2010 at 7:35 am
Marc: But as soon as [Obama was] elected and the shine was off….
Isn’t that racist?
I don’t agree on your reasons for the election of Obama. He promised the moon and the stars to people who thought that he was going to make their car payments and mortgage payments for them.
In “ruling,” as the Democrats call governing, Obama with Pelosi and Reid have crafted the health care plan behind locked doors and made dirty deals outside the view of C-Span’s cameras. That’s his transparent non-partisan politics — not what he promised. It was made worse by Obama’s complete lack of experience in an executive role, with his main background being a community organizer. Now, he and America are paying the price. We warned you, and that’s what is turning off the voters.
But, please keep ignoring reality. The November midterm elections should be a hoot.
January 20th, 2010 at 7:51 am
Happy One Year Anniversary of Obama Being President.
January 20th, 2010 at 8:23 am
More election fun:
Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Won Massachusetts Senate Seat
Daily Kos: It’s time to put Howard Dean back in charge
In a Dewey beats Truman blunder, boston.com posted an online map of Massachusetts voting results declaring Attorney General Martha Coakley the winner of yesterday’s U.S. Senate election.
January 20th, 2010 at 9:07 am
“-We knew all along that the Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008 owed in great part to rejection of George W. Bush and a bankrupt Republican Party more than it did to a pro-active love for Democrats.”
If so, why did Democrats act as if they had a mandate ..”to enact meaningful, swift and profound reform..” of the single payer, or gov’t option kind??
“-But as soon as elected and the shine was off, the racial divide widened up again led by those strange creatures known as ‘independents…”
The movement of independents had nothing to do with race Marc. You appear to be playing the race card here, grasping for any excuses to avoid the pain. When did the ‘independent’ protests start? Right after a Trillion dollars debt was put on their credit cards to bailout failed businesses, immediately followed by 3/4 Trillion dollar debt to bail out mainly over-spent bankrupt States. Independents were mad as hell at BOTH parties for the Business bail-outs, but the President for the States bail-outs. Did some racial tinged signs show up regarding the latter. Yes, but you well know from big demonstrations on the left, ever single demonstrator cannot be controlled, despite the liberal belief it was all planned. “The principal cause of the Democratic defeat tonight and in previous by-elections has nothing to do, whatsoever, with Obama..It owes primarily to a 10% unemployment rate (really a 17% rate) and tremendous economic insecurity and fear.” I agree and it obviously applies equally to the Tea Party movement protesting huge spending and debt in Washington.
“-Obama conceded way too much power to a feckless and literally corrupt Congress.” Agreed. The only thing I would add is “and leftist led’ Congress”.
Keep listening to Josh Marshall’s “whistling past the graveyard” and the pain and disappointment will continue toward the 2010 election “cliff”.
January 20th, 2010 at 9:21 am
“..health insurance stock might be a good bet..”
The stock market went up 100 points on anticipation Brown would win in MA, not good for Health Reform, while Health Care Company stock went down, BI.
So I wouldn’t be buying any Health Care stock if you believe the current Health Reform Bill will eventually pass.
January 20th, 2010 at 9:31 am
If so, why did Democrats act as if they had a mandate ..”to enact meaningful, swift and profound reform..” of the single payer, or gov’t option kind??
Probably for the same reason that Tom Delay said after the 2000 election that the Republicans could now enact an unfettered conservative agenda or the 1994 Republicans “Contract With America” failed so miserably: hubris.
January 20th, 2010 at 9:34 am
“The stock market went up 100 points on anticipation Brown would win in MA”
The stock market went up when Obama approved bailout money for the financial industry.
The stock market went up when a lone butterfly in the jungles of Brazil farted.
In other words, think twice before you draw a single conclusion based on what the stock market does from day to day.
January 20th, 2010 at 9:36 am
That should be “…eventually fail” of course.
January 20th, 2010 at 10:40 am
It seems to me that the Democrats have 57 seats in the Senate and a strong majority in the House, and are unlikely to lose the majority in either anytime soon. This would be considered a strong majority any other time in our history. The Democrats just have to figure out that they can do a little obstruction of their own — all those federal projects and military bases and highways being built and post office repairs in the old confederate states need to be reassessed — there’s a lot of federal dollars that could be saved by cutbacks and base closures etc. Perhaps NASA ought to be moved from Houston to a blue state. Putting it in Texas was a totally political thing anyway, going back to LBJ.
I suspect that a few senators, seeing the potential damage to their home states, and therefore to their voting totals, might think twice about going along with the next filibuster.
January 20th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Oh, and don’t forget about the nuclear option!
Kablammmo!!!!
January 20th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Fine, Bob G. Move the submarine base out of Georgia and put it in Iowa.
January 20th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Kill the new school filibuster. That’s where we’re at now.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I finally learned why the Democrats lost the election. The voters are at fault!
MSNBC’s Deutsch: Mass. Voters Opted for ‘Visceral Comfort’ of a White Guy
Globe Columnist Goes Off Deep End: Mass. Electorate Was ‘Drunk on Power’
Bitter David Shuster Rants About Hitler Posters of Tea Partiers, ‘Far Right Elements’
Yep, you just can’t trust those voters in a democratic system of government. Only the elite know what’s best. Our media tells us so.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
I’ll add ths one.
NBC’s Meredith Vieira to Scott Brown: You’re Derailing Cause of Teddy’s Lifetime
Heaven forbid the voters acting in their own best interests or even consider issues other than the left-wing agenda. Meanwhile, I suppose that Ms. Vieira isn’t selfish and will share her big salary with those who can’t afford medical care.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Excellent description of the cluelessness of the congressional GOP regarding the economy. Completely directionless, nihilistic, and contradictory. Brown will fit right in.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
In case you need a reminder of what the right wing has to offer, over at GM’s Sanitarium, this idiocy is up on the front page:
“i have written previously that the european left intends to use muslim immigration and the social discord it will create to sufficient for the politicians to excuse the imposition of the entirety of the marxist state upon the euro union, but not to do so until the time were opportune, say just after muslim terror wipes out the last of the europe vestiges of nationalism and nation state.”
January 20th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Let’s bear in mind that Brown has to run for reëlection in 2012 as he’s serving out the remainder of Kennedy’s term. the Dems should come up with someone solid to run against him.
January 20th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Randy: “hubris.”
Randy, you are exactly correct. Both parties have it, both need to drop it like a hot potato (potatoe if you prefer)
January 20th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
I was hoping to read Reg’s thoughts on this….Reg, where are you?
January 20th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Reg is serving on jury duty in Woody’s trial.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Sounds like Coakley and the Dems failed to craft a compelling message and got slammed by the erstwhile male model. No surprise there. Entrepreneurial political culture triumphs again.
I agree with those above who call on the Dems to pass the Senate HC bill, declare victory, and move on. The states are still in big financial trouble, and the new jobs are coming from where, exactly? If Obama fails, what takes his place? Troubled times await us.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
The connection between this race and health care reform is excpetionally weak. The rap on Obama seems to have settled into this notion that he didn’t lead Congress enough, but this seems to rather conveniently ignore the charge against the Clinton plan; that he didn’t let Congress do enough work and arrogantly ran over them. So which is it? Was Obama wrong in letting Congress do it’s work, or was Clinton wrong in aggressively driving the process? (And no one gets to do the hand wavy routine where some imaginary power allows a president to fiat in a bill).
The fact is that the Monday morning QB routine on this doesn’t really get us anywhere. We can speculate that more leadership here, or a softer touch there would have been better on health care reform. Maybe Rahm Emmanuel had a debilitating effect on the overall direction (but does anyone really think that Obama just dances to that pipe tune?), and maybe he didn’t.
All the projections about what this means should be thrown out unless they come with iron-clad evidence. There are too many factors otherwise. Sounds like Coakley ran an asstastic campaign–there’s a pretty big variable right there.
The one thing that we know drives voter behavior–the one thing actually backed up by evidence–is the state of the economy. It’s pretty clear that voters were sick of the Cheney-Bush years, and that they were voting on the economy.
There are consequently, two things in play here, 1) in *almost* all cases the president’s party loses seats in the next mid-term and 2) the economy still blows, and this is the primary index of voter motivation.
If these reasons are historically sufficient to explain behavior, why do we need any other ad hoc, fantastical reasons for the loss?
And I’ll beat this drum once more. This is a total non-issue if the filibuster is reformed. Our country is being held hostage by a tiny minority of the population. Why don’t we abolish the supermajority in all cases except for a declaration of war which will require 75% of the House?
January 20th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
I have voted for the California Peace and Freedom Party since 1980. In all that time the Democrats have not been able to pass anything that would significantly improve the lives of working people and have been complicit in the dismantling of the New Deal. Without the Democrats, there would be no NAFTA, GATT, WTO or Wall Street bailout. Without the Democrats, Aid to Families With Dependent Children might still exist. The Democrats are also complicit in the Iraq – Afghanistan war, the bombing of Serbia, the Contra War, and the coup in Chile. The time has come for EVERYONE who is for working people and against creeping facism to abandon the Democratic Party and vote for independent left candidates, run for office against the Democrats and Republicans and push the corrupt AFL-CIO to do the same. Don’t blame me for Obama, I voted for Nader.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Frankly, I am not convinced that this race was a so-called referendum on health care reform in general.
Democrats should divide the health bill into smaller pieces, and force the Republicans to filibuster each part as it goes to the floor. Like an individual bill banning denial of insurance based on pre-existing conditions, another bill allowing re-imported pharmaceutical medicines, shortening drug patents, etc. Let the GOP vote to filibuster these bills one by one. I would run on that in Massachusetts in 2012, or any state for that matter.
Look at it this way – North Carolina in 1998, and Virginia in 2006, elected Democrats in 2006 over bumbling candidates who ran poor campaigns. The same thing has happened here to the Dems. The result? We have the exact same Senatorial make-up that existed the day after the elections of 2008, when Spector was still a Republican.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
typos again in that last paragraph, but you get the point. Keep your heads up, and don’t fret if Reid goes this year….good riddance.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
If Mike Capuano, a much more street-wise politician, had won the primary, it’s likely he would have won big, because he wouldn’t have let Brown frame the race first. Even if Capuano had won 52-48, we’d be having a whole other conversation. And there are other factors in the state: a dormant Kennedy resentment, an unpopular and ineffective governor, a half dozen recent scandals in the state legislature, and, don’t forget, a state health care plan with a mandate, protection for preexisting conditions, and safety nets for the uninsured. Breaking up the health reform into easy to understand bill was always a better idea. Add onto that the horrific sight of the health care sausage-maker–deal for pharma, deal for unions, deal for Nebraska–out of control the weeks before the election. Bingo.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
This election is a referendum on health care bill which over 60% of the population was against.People in Massachusetts have said they watched life-long Democrats vote for the Republican because they were against the health care bill. They watched the elderly and the working class vote for the Republican because they were against the health care bill. The health care bill in its present form is toxic to Obama and the Democrats, so let’s see what he does in the next week.
Second, as Marc says the election was about the 17% unemployment rate, and Obama’s stimulus bill while helpful to some was much too weak. Steiglist, Krugman and many other economics have called for stronger measures to deal with jobs. If Obama revives the WPA and/or the Civilian Conservation Corps, he could help millions of unemployed and get their loyalty. But Obama has been listening to pro-corporate Rahm and Summers. We’ll see what Obama does now.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
I’ve been following Ezra K and Josh Marshall today and finding a range of commentary there useful…and depressing. My main concern isn’t that some moderate GOPer won a statewide election in Massachusetts – that’s actually one of the “normal” things that happens in Mass politics. Kennedy had a tough fight against Romney to keep his Senate seat. What worries me is what kind of dumbass, chickenshit “lessons” are going to be drawn now that the GOP controls…a minority in both houses of congress. I mean, did the Dems assume they’d have a 60 seat supermajority in the Senate when Obama ran and an agenda was being built. And what was the “supermajority” really worth, with creeps like Ben Nelson and the execrable Joe Lieberman using the magic number of 60 to feather their own nests and get face-time on Meet The Press. Hysteria over this is absurd. Coakley lost fair and square because she acted like she deserved the seat – and she wasn’t even an incumbent. Bullshit. If Dems can’t grow a pair in the face of this terrible crisis of controlling Congress and the White House, what the hell is the point ? The GOP may be a bunch of knuckledragging bastards, but they understand power. If the Dems let Evan Bayh – or the pieties of GM Roper, who is certifiably insane given what Mavis just posted from his blog – dominate this moderately depressing but hardly disastrous day, I guess they deserve whatever losses are in store. People respect strength. Dems worry too much about process. My fear is that too many Dems will use this as an excuse to take refuge as the timid bullshitters they so often are, not really wanting to do anything other than mouth platitudes and get re-elected. I’m not of the “punish them” school that would withhold my vote because a Dem wasn’t liberal enough for me – but the electorate will do what the left doesn’t need to do if the response to this modest electoral event, that isn’t nearly the “upset” it’s made out to be, is to show more weakness rather than greater strength and fight for the people’s interests and a coherent reform agenda.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Actually Reg you touch upon quite an ironic point. I can’t prove it but I am sure that the percentage of moderate, independent and conservative Democrats who issued a punishment vote was much higher than discouraged progressives who I am sure flocked to the polls.
January 20th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Julia – explain to me how this was a referendum on the health care bill when the bill is essentially the same type of system that is in place in Massachusetts and that the opportunistic Mr. Brown voted for. I’m sure there’s some “I’ve got mine” attitude operative – there always is – but the polling I’ve seen of Obama voters who switched to Brown in this election cycle was that they didn’t feel the administration was doing enough to rein in Wall Street – and paradoxically voted for a guy who will actually do less. But the electorate can’t be defined in simplistic terms and results in these kinds of times, with the economy so screwed, aren’t necessarily precise or rational. I am dead certain that if a Democrat had run a decent campaign and put themselves before the people with the vigor that Brown did they would have won. I’m also certain that if unemployment in Mass weren’t 8% (I believe, or thereabouts) but around 5, any Dem would likely have won. I think health care is close to a non-issue in Massachusetts. Brown supports the same system as Obama is proposing, but only at the state level. That’s a very abstract distinction – it might make sense below the Mason Dixon line where resentments against the federal government are rampant, despite so much federal dependency, but not in a northeastern state.
January 20th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
The stock market went down 100 pts today.
The Republicans will be out of power for the next 15 years.
January 20th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Yeah, the stock market interpretations are my all-time favorites. Every single day we’re treated to just-so stories about how the market “reacted” to news of this or that. This sort of commentary desrves nothing but total contempt. It’s laughably idiotic, and yet these experts get on TV every day and solemnly intone to the world about what the market’s real reasons are. What a load of shit. Just like the political commentaries spinning the “meaning” of a single race.
January 20th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
I try to fight these totally negative verdicts on the Democratic Party, but I’m sure others saw this over at Josh Marshall’s and it’s almost more embarrassing than maddening – certainly deserves an airing on Marc’s blog, since it’s so in line with his pessimism but coming from a long-time staffer watching the Beltway Dems running in circles and showing their worst.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/01/relieved.php?ref=fpblg
January 20th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
On the filibuster issue I keep prattling on about: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11geoghegan.html?pagewanted=all
The most damning paragraph: But the bigger reason for the rule was to keep a minority from walking out and thereby blocking a majority vote. In Federalist No. 75, Hamilton dismissed a supermajority rule for a quorum thus: “All provisions which require more than a majority of any body to its resolutions have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority.”
The whole article is worth a read.
January 20th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
“The Republicans will be out of power for the next 15 years.”
I assume that was ironic, but I’m not so worried about how long the GOPers are out of power – although concievably it might actually be that long – but if the Dems are ever able to gain power, even with the GOP “out.”
January 20th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Reg,
The election of Scott Brown was a refrendum on the health care bill because Brown campaigned against the bill again and again.
Also, according to a poll by the firm Research 2000 said a majority of Obama voters who switched to Brown said “Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street … A full 95 percent said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote.”
Further, the poll found, ” A plurality of people who switched — 48 — or didn’t vote — 43 — said that they opposed the Senate health care bill. But the poll dug deeper and asked people why they opposed it. Among those Brown voters, 23 percent thought it went “too far” — but 36 percent thought it didn’t go far enough and 41 percent said they weren’t sure why they opposed it.
“Among voters who stayed home and opposed health care, a full 53 percent said they opposed the Senate bill because it didn’t go far enough; 39 percent weren’t sure and only eight percent thought it went too far.”
The firm Research 2000 conducted the post-election survey Tuesday night on behalf of three progressive organizations — the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America and MoveOn.org.
They polled 500 Obama backers who voted in the Senate election and 500 Obama backers who sat out the election, and they found out that “18 percent of Obama backers who voted in the Senate race ended up casting ballots for Brown.”
Of the 18% of Obama voters who voted for Brown, “82 percent said they favored a public option for insurance coverage, with 14 percent opposed. Of those who sat out the election, 86 percent favored the public option, while only seven percent opposed it.”
Reg, it’s obvious that the majority of the voters truly hate Obama’s health care bill. I think it’s an awful bill, with its worst provision of mandates making people afraid of losing their job have increased rates for inferior corporate health insurance. The mandates are insult upon injury. I would have either sat it out or voted for the Republican for the first time in my life.
January 20th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Julia – John Judis has an article over at TNR which cites poll supporting your health care thesis. I’ve seen other versions and I’m skeptical that it’s that simple – I think the general economic malaise is the driver.
January 20th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Didn’t see your post when I wrote that last – your second paragraph is the convincing one to me. Campaigning against a strategy for health care reform that Brown voted for on the state level wouldn’t have done anything for him without the generalized anxiety. Unfortunately, the nature of this health care reform plays into the larger narrative that the Dems are too cozy with the corporate guys. Of course, voting for Brown with that particular set of resentments is completely irrational, but that’s politics in the good old USA. And your characterization of the health bill is way over the top IMHO. People will be less afraid of losing their health care if they lose their job if the bill actually passes and people get a handle on it. There’s been an absurd amount of disinformation and scare talk.
January 20th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Also, I think your internal data on that poll supports the assumption that people who are “against” the bill don’t really understand why. Since a very similiar system is in place in MA and people overwhelming want to see it stay in place according to polling, I think the health care rhetoric around this election is symbolic, not substantive.
January 20th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Wow – this is interesting, all other issues aside. People who call Barney Frank’s office actually – at least sometimes – get to talk to Barney Frank. That’s amazing…
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/01/placing_a_call_part_ii.php?ref=fpblg
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:43 am
Good points, reg!
April 14th, 2010 at 10:02 am
I have been lookin’ for opinions on this for ages.
This place is pretty cool.
May 4th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
cohiba
cigar