But Mr. Brown was able to appeal to independents who were anxious about the economy and concerned about the direction taken by Democrats, now that they control all the branches of government, both on Beacon Hill and in Washington. He rallied his supporters when he said, at the last debate, that he was not running for Mr. Kennedy’s seat but for “the people’s seat.” It was a sharp swing of the pendulum, but even Democratic voters said they wanted the Obama administration to change direction. Mr. Brown ran strongest in the suburbs of Boston, where the independent voters who make up a majority in Massachusetts turned out in large numbers.
The Dems went from the biggest majority since the 1920's to the 2nd biggest majority since the 1920's.
It seems the people of the Commonwealth disagree with your conclusions. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ook_at_massachusetts_election_night_poll_data
what, of trying to ask a tough question? I caught an extended bit of this debate this morning on the boob and Gergen wasn't throwing softballs to either candidate. The irony of claiming he was showing bias here runs thick STOMP
Jim Webb is smart. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/On_to_Plan_C.html Senator Jim Webb puts out a statement that puts the notion of a quick Senate vote out of reach and pretty much makes a certification fight moot: In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated. And good luck getting Lieberman to vote for cloture this week anyway.
thats the truth and dems should starting acting like it now. playing nice in the sandbox is losing traction with the public. the ppl gave them that historical majority and with that was a mandate to get shit done. this deal making no-sense with that "rat" joseph lieberman and the conservative democrats is maddening. here's lieberman's take on this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/19/lieberman-urges-party-to_n_428686.html
I'm sorry..I know GOP'ers..or more appropriately anti-Dems will spin this to be a "referendum" but that's a pretty far stretch. For some people I'm sure it was, but Coakley was a horrible, horrible candidate. The things she said and the way she ran her campaign showed a complete indifference to the people and almost a feeling that she was entitled to the position. You could've run Bush out there and he'd have won against her. If the Dems have any balls at all, they'll pass a modified health care package before Brown is seated. But they don't, so it will fail once again. Rejoice all of you people with insurance stock! You've managed to screw the country once again. I notice none of you are clamoring for a new set of changes to health care, just that your side "won". Fantastic. The absolute #1 problem with politics in America is most people treat it more like a basketball game with teams than a cooperative venture to decide the best choices for everyone.
If Reid wants to keep his post, and Obama wants to boost his ratings they should both come out publicly and tell little Joe to piss off and ask for him not to caucus with the Dems.
I simply don't like this Bill. I've posted a number of times that I favor a government option, specifically one that competes with the insurance companies and doctors and hospitals. This Bill doesn't have it, and never did. This Bill is a mandate to give money to the insurance companies. Since when are you for corporate welfare? I really don't see why we should tax everyone in a bad economy to pay the insurance companies. There's little in the Bill that addresses the cost of insurance. It was horribly filled with $300M here and $300M there to buy senate and house votes - money that can certainly be better spent (pay down the debt, reduce the deficits!). If they want to pass a Bill that will get 100 votes in the senate, they could. Strip out the taxes and mandates and keep the few provisions that don't cost us anything. Things like portability and ability to buy across state lines and import drugs at lower cost and allow people to buy insurance as members of coops. There's actually an opportunity to do something good that's soooo less drastic and we can actually see if those things have good effect.
any time i see lieberman speak- i just want to break his nose. reid needs to get newt and start getting gangsta and the president needs to inherit his predecessor's total disregard for the other side
It would be the equivalent of a Republican winning in Multnomah County or for Mayor of DC. You could run a cold piece of dog crap and if it had a "D" next to it's name, it would take 60% of the vote. Don't kid yourself, this was a referendum on Obama's Big Government programs, and a crushing defeat.
I don't like the Senate version. I like more of the House version. I, like you, would like to see something closer to the Swiss version. However, I honestly believe that without one kernel of fundamental change no one has the ability to ever "think outside the box". We're so afraid of trying anything "radically new" - although it's been test driven a few dozen times around the world - that we get caught up in these mindsets that are oblivious to any change at all. Was either bill the best solution? Hell no. Would the "best solution" pass Congress? Hell no. Would even a moderate step that had really good elements get GOP support? I honestly believe, hell no. They don't want to give anything away that might be conceived as a victory because then their team "lost". Pre-Reagan I can remember a few times when everyone came together. Now it's just one big pissing match. That's why I keep saying the Dems need to just show some balls, write up whatever the hell they want, tell the blue dog Dems that if they don't support it they'll never see a cent of federal money and push the thing through. At first there will be a wave of putrid anger and hate and then after a few years when people actually see the benefits they might remember that and vote for more change. But since when has anybody thought long-term...
Wow . . . this will make for an interesting election this coming fall with lots of seats on the line. I don't know if this is about the canidates or a statement from the voters taht they are not happy with Obama . . . but we are going to find out. I think Obama is finding out the voting public is not patient and that he will be blamed (right or wrong) for the current situation in the US. Kind of like a basketball coach, you get the blame and are the first name mentioned to get rid of when thigns aren't good. Not that I feel sorry for Obama, it goes with the teritory and he created some of this (if not most). Should have taken on health care in his second term . . .
so it wasn't Ted Kennedy's seat??? You're getting fired up over semantics and claiming bias over something that rates below a mole hill as an issue STOMP
Nope. It was the People's seat. Didn't you learn anything from this election? It wasn't semantics. Gergen asked directly how Brown could vote against something that Ted Kennedy had championed for most of his life.
Actually, a cold piece of dog crap would do better than her because the crap wouldn't say such asinine things! Don't kid yourself, this is not all about Obama's "Big Government" programs. If you see a massive loss in mid-terms, sure. But one race with such obvious personality issues doesn't make much of a statement. If it does to you then I'd hate to see the research studies you base your life around...
Okay, here's one: the closest Massachusetts Senate race in the past decade was John Kerry's 35 point margin. Seriously, Coakley was up 30 points in this race two months ago.
