Anyone who thinks that they voted this way purely because of health-care is a complete moron.
Have yo followed the local media? I have. Trust me, it was a major issue. I believe I read a stat that said that 48% of the voters had health care as primary the reason they cast their vote. (IIRC) You are correct. Most people in MA like their current health care plan. That's why they were so outraged at the federal plan. There was a constant message that their health care would get worse. They were also furious that they'd have to pay for NE and LA.
Healthcare was one of many issues, but it was one of the top two.
The Dems can come back fine. They just need to look within. Blaming Republicans will do no good. Brown's victory was a symptom, not the disease. Blaming the Republicans is like driving a car into a parked bus and complaining that the bus didn't move.
Bill Clinton bounced back with no problem. But he adapted. Obama can do the same.
Putting in provisions of a bill to please certain Senators isn't exactly bribery. It's a fun word to use, but this, again, is negotiation. Bribing would be paying the official directly for their vote. This is the same thing as changing abortion language in the bill to please a small group of congressmen. Also, the Nelson compromise is gone.
Yeah, how about an article with details and sources? That one seems less than credible.
Let's assume, however, that it is true. Note something here:
"That is the PhRMA deal," said the lobbyist of the outline. He then clarified, "It was the PhRMA deal."
So all you've shown is that the White House negotiated with PhRMA, to get them on board with a bill that will affect them. OK, so this a deal with PhRMA. It's not exactly a secret, as the White House confirmed the deals. I see a negotiation with a special-interest group that is greatly affected by legislation.
That's not a bribe. That's the collective bargaining process. That's what unions do.
Call it what you will. I'm just saying what people in MA were calling it - at least on the local radio stations I was listening to. I'm also telling you what they were saying about deals with NE and LA. It, frankly, doesn't matter what we call it. What matters is what the voters were calling it. They were calling it a bribe.
And with Pharma, it doesn't matter what I have to say. My point is that the voters picked up on it and responded negatively.
I'm just telling you what the voters were talking about. That's the issue. I'm telling you how people perceive these matters. Whether or not you agree, it's reckless for the party to engage in practices that people perceive as being dishonest and harmful. They need to reform their message or stop engaging in these behaviors. The status quo will only hurt the party. We know that now.
We're screwedThis is one of the democratic primary candidates in December. When he was talking to democrats in Mass he found they were always talking about jobs and Afghanistan. The message of her campaign was not hitting where the democrats concern was. I'm trying to find some of the data that was taken in the last few days, but it really showed that people just liked Brown as a candidate were not voting as a national referendum like the news channels want to make you think (since it's a better story).
Honestly, the more I think about it, I'm happy without a really crazy bill that doesn't do half that I would be interested in. Rather have people realize what they have done (more people get thrown off insurance and watch prices go up) and maybe people will elect people who actually want to change or improve the system. Instead of having to
I'm just telling you what the voters were talking about. That's the issue. I'm telling you how people perceive these matters. Whether or not you agree, it's reckless for the party to engage in practices that people perceive as being dishonest and harmful. They need to reform their message or stop engaging in these behaviors. The status quo will only hurt the party. We know that now.
It's only perceived as being terribly dishonest and harmful because voters are consistently misinformed. The whole process is plagued by a bunch of noise that the vast majority of voters simply cannot ignore. By repeating that noise in any context, you contribute to the problem. You either need to decrease the noise level or not add to it.
The "status quo will only hurt the party" gets thrown around all the time, but it never rings true. The "status quo" is that those who are best at playing politics will stay in office irrespective of their stances on the issues, level of corruption, representation of voters, etc.
but it really showed that people just liked Brown as a candidate were not voting as a national referendum like the news channels want to make you think (since it's a better story).
I think it's a combination of the two. Brown campaigned very well. Coakley campaigned very poorly. But Brown needed to tap into discontent to get over the hump. The big question is what exactly Brown tapped into. In a state like MA, when it was Kennedy's seat up for grabs, it wasn't just Brown's personality.
According to Rasmussen, 56% of voters said that health care was the most important factor in their voting decision. Hard to deny that health care was an important factor in this election. For the majority of people it was.
Coakley picked up the majority of that 56% - 53% to 46%.
So did health care bring about Coakley's defeat. Not alone. Was it an important issue? Yes. As Rasmussen says, "One key to Brown’s victory is that 41% Strongly Opposed the plan while just 25% Strongly Favored it". There can be little doubt that the strong opposition to the health care bill drove some voters to Brown who might otherwise have voted for Coakley. If fewer strongly opposed the bill, then Coakley would have won a greater percentage of voters that identified health care as the most important factor in their decision.
This backs up what I saw in the local media. Health care was most certainly a huge factor. There were other significant factors, but this was not an election about personality alone.
One other issue is that Obama himself campaigned poorly on behalf of Coakley. His making fun of Brown's truck went over like a lead balloon. It got lots of airplay. Brown drives an American-made truck with 200,000 miles on it. The "regular guy" identified with that. Not wise to make fun of it. Brown's truck was a PR stunt - but Obama handled it poorly. Obama also stumbled when he forgot what state he was in (when addressing Kerry).
This backs up what I saw in the local media. Health care was most certainly a huge factor. There were other significant factors, but this was not an election about personality alone.
The real question then to ask is, was it opposition to all health-care reform, this particular bill, lack of a public option or the fact that Mass already has a better system. So many different ways to dislike the current health-care bill :-p
My anecdotal take on the matter is that MA is open to public health care, but many were disgusted at a very flawed process that resulted in an expensive bill that accomplished much less than hoped for. There was a consistent message from the public that the bill responded to the wishes of big business, rather than the public. The best piece of evidence is the huge hit that Coakley took when she went to DC to a fundraiser put on by Big Pharma while Brown shook hands with people outside of Fenway Park. She turned off a lot of voters by doing this. You could sense a real change in the air, at least as far as the local talk shows were concerned.
I agree with you Kilarney, My concern is that the republicans won't even get on the field and play ball at all. (at least not the way democrats do when the republicans are in charge)
I agree with you Kilarney, My concern is that the republicans won't even get on the field and play ball at all. (at least not the way democrats do when the republicans are in charge)
A very valid concern. This could, however, be used to the Dems advantage. For the Republicans, being called the party of "No" can't be good in the long run when there are serious problems that need to be dealt with.
The Republicans have their work cut out for them. There is a lot of anger and unrest out there, but the Republicans haven't really come up with any solutions other than to say "We're not Democrats. I feel your pain."
There is a void right now that either party can fill. Unfortunately, the Dems didn't seize an opportunity with health care reform. Brown scored big points by focusing on aspects of the bill that are not "for the people", but were for lobbying groups. The Dems can go back and retool health care reform in a way that appeals to individual voters and come out looking really good. The Republicans won't do this, so they have a real opportunity here.
Having said that, it's tough. Really tough. Taking on corporate interests, when it comes to health care, allows fear mongers to claim that we are going to have substandard health care. Someone needs to figure out how to counter that message. We can have great health care whether or not a corporation runs it. But the contents of any bill needs to take care of these concerns. People need to know that quality will remain, even if the corporation running the program won't.
The other big problem is that the clock is running on the economy. Blaming the state of the economy on Bush will only get you so far. The longer the economy drags, the more voters will hold Obama accountable. If he can hang on, he might do well. We'll snap out of it at some point, and may very well be prior to the next presidential election.
One interesting thing about the MA senate race is that Brown ran a campaign straight from the Obama playbook. And Coakley let him do it. She allowed him to characterize himself absent any intervention from her. Being on vacation while he did this didn't help.
In MA, as a gross generalization, the Dems haven't had many legitimate challenges from Republicans. Therefore, while they had a "machine", it was not a "machine" designed for a campaign against a Republican. Inertia took its toll.
Keep wishing that the MA vote was only based on local personalities, or confront the evidence that national issues were front and center in the voters' minds.
I don't get it, it says 95% said the economy was the number one issue..... That's one of the things I was saying.
That's not what it said. It said: "A full 95 percent said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote."
It was important, but not necessarily the "number one issue."
The fact that it was important, however, means that this was more than a personality contest. Much more.
This was also a poll limited to former Obama supporters. 56% of a broader group said that health care was the most important factor in deciding who to vote for. Within that group, no doubt the economy was important or very important for many people.
All evidence that national issues were front and center in this election. Here is another poll that shows that national issues were indeed an important factor.
How, exactly, these national issues played out is somewhat complicated until we get more polls. But every poll shows that national issues were definitely influencing voters.
I'd love to see stats suggesting otherwise, but so far I haven't come across any.
And let's be honest. If Coakley ran a better campaign, and if Brown ran a worse campaign, Coakley would have won. So it was also about the people. It just wasn't solely about the people.
Yeah, that's great. No health care reform, but someone gets to be happy that a "prediction" seems like it will come true. That balances out, doesn't it?
Yeah, that's great. No health care reform, but someone gets to be happy that a "prediction" seems like it will come true. That balances out, doesn't it?
That's a little uncalled for.
I'm disappointed, because this is almost guaranteed to kill the bill or weaken it past usefulness, but this makes sense politically for Obama. This will give the Democrats an opportunity to show the Republicans as simply being an opposition party. It also allows Obama to save face and show integrity, which may help his future in office.
Yeah, that's great. No health care reform, but someone gets to be happy that a "prediction" seems like it will come true. That balances out, doesn't it?
That's a little uncalled for.
What's uncalled for? Cremlian's characterization that Kilarney was wishing that there would be no health care reform? Or that he considers crowing over his prediction to be more important than health care reform? Both are just fair readings of his posts throughout this thread. As I recall, even you queried him at one point as to why he was so eager for reform to fail.
No health care reform, but someone gets to be happy that a "prediction" seems like it will come true. That balances out, doesn't it?
This was a little uncalled for. It's one thing to call someone out when they're wrong, but it's another thing entirely to jump on someone every single chance you get. Just cool your jets a little, OK? No meaningful discussion can happen when we start the mud-slinging and finger-pointing.
If you want to shoot down someone's "powers of prediction," just point out that a cynical prediction coming true is hardly surprising. Things rarely turn out precisely the way we hope.
Anyhow, the coming few months are going to be very very crucial to the Democrats. They need to bounce back from this, or we're going to get very split and ineffective houses.
Cremlian's characterization that Kilarney was wishing that there would be no health care reform?
That's not true, I don't think Kilarney wanted no health care reform. I think he wanted a reform that wasn't completely written by lobbyists and made in back rooms. I'm not happy with what the health-care bill became but I could live with it, that being said there are plenty of reforms that still need to happen that both sides can agree on and at least get a few republican votes.
Wait guys, I have the solution to all the problems. I found it on my car forum!.
Want health insurance regulation? Here's some helpful advice.
Go to school, get a good useful education, work hard, and land a job with good benefits instead of sitting there with a GED, wondering why your fulltime job at Big Lots doesn't provide adequate insurance.
Wait guys, I have the solution to all the problems. I found it on my car forum!.
Want health insurance regulation? Here's some helpful advice.
Go to school, get a good useful education, work hard, and land a job with good benefits instead of sitting there with a GED, wondering why your fulltime job at Big Lots doesn't provide adequate insurance.
Work for it. The rest of us did.
Tell the fuckwit that posted that about the teachers you know who have master's degrees and worked very hard who got laid off because of the economy and who can't afford COBRA and certainly can't afford private insurance. I'm one of those teachers. He can take his associate's degree and shove it. Or about my friend with a PHD who got laid off, and who got denied health care insurance because HIS WIFE IS PREGNANT. Or how the option for me and my wife could very well be "die or go into crushing debt" if her cancer ever comes back.
I'm surprised that the Democrats aren't pushing hard on the statistics that some scary majority of bankruptcies in the US are due solely to medical expenses. We pay as a society no matter what: it's simply a matter of when. I'd rather pay ahead of time and prevent the later problems then pay for the problems when they occur.
I'm surprised that the Democrats aren't pushing hard on the statistics that some scary majority of bankruptcies in the US are due solely to medical expenses. We pay as a society no matter what: it's simply a matter of when. I'd rather pay ahead of time and prevent the later problems then pay for the problems when they occur.
That was part of the initial noise when the bill was being debated, but it's died off since then. They should really keep that at the forefront of the discussion. As a side note, the bill includes a section providing the rationale for requiring people to carry health insurance.
Tell the fuckwit that posted that about the teachers you know who have master's degrees and worked very hard who got laid off because of the economy and who can't afford COBRA and certainly can't afford private insurance. I'm one of those teachers. He can take his associate's degree and shove it. Or about my friend with a PHD who got laid off, and who got denied health care insurance because HIS WIFE IS PREGNANT. Or how the option for me and my wife could very well be "die or go into crushing debt" if her cancer ever comes back.
And done, doubt he'll care though.
I'm surprised that the Democrats aren't pushing hard on the statistics that some scary majority of bankruptcies in the US are due solely to medical expenses. We pay as a society no matter what: it's simply a matter of when. I'd rather pay ahead of time and prevent the later problems then pay for the problems when they occur.
The problem I'm coming across is that people are incredibly ignorant of the problems with the current system. Then there's the people who have been breed to think all government intervention is bad. And lastly, there's the amazing idiots who think that any mention of fixing health insurance immediately means total and completely government run health care. Basically we're arguing with idiots. These are the same people that think global warming is a conspiracy to make money. No amount of facts can dissuade these people from their crazy ideals. The long for an America where everyone forges their own way on their personal merits, like it was when they were kids (or so they think).
EDIT: Further making my point is that that dumbass, "work harder" post was what was said to me when I said I hoped we could still get some insurance regulation. There's an assumption by the poster that anyone who wants this sort of thing is clearly a dead beat. I have a bachelors from a Big 10 school, I work at one of the best gov't consulting firms in the country, I have the best insurance money can buy! I just care about other people, like Kate, Adam and my mother.
They long for an America where everyone forges their own way on their personal merits,
I long desperately for that, but recognize that it's never truly been that way. In an ideal society (as far as I am concerned), everyone is given equal opportunity to achieve their maximum potential, and mistakes are painful but not fatal.
The long for an America where everyone forges their own way on their personal merits, like it was when they were kids (or so they think).
See, that would be great. The guy's idea isn't necessarily a bad one: work hard, get a better job, strive for greatness, etc. The problem is that we don't equip people with the tools necessary to do that, and not everyone is in a position to get a job with benefits.
Comments
Healthcare was one of many issues, but it was one of the top two.
The Dems can come back fine. They just need to look within. Blaming Republicans will do no good. Brown's victory was a symptom, not the disease. Blaming the Republicans is like driving a car into a parked bus and complaining that the bus didn't move.
Bill Clinton bounced back with no problem. But he adapted. Obama can do the same.
Let's assume, however, that it is true. Note something here: So all you've shown is that the White House negotiated with PhRMA, to get them on board with a bill that will affect them. OK, so this a deal with PhRMA. It's not exactly a secret, as the White House confirmed the deals. I see a negotiation with a special-interest group that is greatly affected by legislation.
So what's the issue?
And with Pharma, it doesn't matter what I have to say. My point is that the voters picked up on it and responded negatively.
I'm just telling you what the voters were talking about. That's the issue. I'm telling you how people perceive these matters. Whether or not you agree, it's reckless for the party to engage in practices that people perceive as being dishonest and harmful. They need to reform their message or stop engaging in these behaviors. The status quo will only hurt the party. We know that now.
Honestly, the more I think about it, I'm happy without a really crazy bill that doesn't do half that I would be interested in. Rather have people realize what they have done (more people get thrown off insurance and watch prices go up) and maybe people will elect people who actually want to change or improve the system. Instead of having to
The "status quo will only hurt the party" gets thrown around all the time, but it never rings true. The "status quo" is that those who are best at playing politics will stay in office irrespective of their stances on the issues, level of corruption, representation of voters, etc.
National issues were indeed a factor. (How much is subject to debate.)
Just one example.
Coakley picked up the majority of that 56% - 53% to 46%.
So did health care bring about Coakley's defeat. Not alone. Was it an important issue? Yes. As Rasmussen says, "One key to Brown’s victory is that 41% Strongly Opposed the plan while just 25% Strongly Favored it". There can be little doubt that the strong opposition to the health care bill drove some voters to Brown who might otherwise have voted for Coakley. If fewer strongly opposed the bill, then Coakley would have won a greater percentage of voters that identified health care as the most important factor in their decision.
This backs up what I saw in the local media. Health care was most certainly a huge factor. There were other significant factors, but this was not an election about personality alone.
One other issue is that Obama himself campaigned poorly on behalf of Coakley. His making fun of Brown's truck went over like a lead balloon. It got lots of airplay. Brown drives an American-made truck with 200,000 miles on it. The "regular guy" identified with that. Not wise to make fun of it. Brown's truck was a PR stunt - but Obama handled it poorly. Obama also stumbled when he forgot what state he was in (when addressing Kerry).
The Republicans have their work cut out for them. There is a lot of anger and unrest out there, but the Republicans haven't really come up with any solutions other than to say "We're not Democrats. I feel your pain."
There is a void right now that either party can fill. Unfortunately, the Dems didn't seize an opportunity with health care reform. Brown scored big points by focusing on aspects of the bill that are not "for the people", but were for lobbying groups. The Dems can go back and retool health care reform in a way that appeals to individual voters and come out looking really good. The Republicans won't do this, so they have a real opportunity here.
Having said that, it's tough. Really tough. Taking on corporate interests, when it comes to health care, allows fear mongers to claim that we are going to have substandard health care. Someone needs to figure out how to counter that message. We can have great health care whether or not a corporation runs it. But the contents of any bill needs to take care of these concerns. People need to know that quality will remain, even if the corporation running the program won't.
The other big problem is that the clock is running on the economy. Blaming the state of the economy on Bush will only get you so far. The longer the economy drags, the more voters will hold Obama accountable. If he can hang on, he might do well. We'll snap out of it at some point, and may very well be prior to the next presidential election.
One interesting thing about the MA senate race is that Brown ran a campaign straight from the Obama playbook. And Coakley let him do it. She allowed him to characterize himself absent any intervention from her. Being on vacation while he did this didn't help.
In MA, as a gross generalization, the Dems haven't had many legitimate challenges from Republicans. Therefore, while they had a "machine", it was not a "machine" designed for a campaign against a Republican. Inertia took its toll.
"A full 95 percent said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote."
It was important, but not necessarily the "number one issue."
The fact that it was important, however, means that this was more than a personality contest. Much more.
This was also a poll limited to former Obama supporters. 56% of a broader group said that health care was the most important factor in deciding who to vote for. Within that group, no doubt the economy was important or very important for many people.
All evidence that national issues were front and center in this election. Here is another poll that shows that national issues were indeed an important factor.
How, exactly, these national issues played out is somewhat complicated until we get more polls. But every poll shows that national issues were definitely influencing voters.
I'd love to see stats suggesting otherwise, but so far I haven't come across any.
And let's be honest. If Coakley ran a better campaign, and if Brown ran a worse campaign, Coakley would have won. So it was also about the people. It just wasn't solely about the people.
You got your wish apparently. He's going to push for the popular measures only.
I'm disappointed, because this is almost guaranteed to kill the bill or weaken it past usefulness, but this makes sense politically for Obama. This will give the Democrats an opportunity to show the Republicans as simply being an opposition party. It also allows Obama to save face and show integrity, which may help his future in office.
If you want to shoot down someone's "powers of prediction," just point out that a cynical prediction coming true is hardly surprising. Things rarely turn out precisely the way we hope.
Anyhow, the coming few months are going to be very very crucial to the Democrats. They need to bounce back from this, or we're going to get very split and ineffective houses.
EDIT: Obama says that the party lost touch with the American people last year.Well, I suppose that's a start. Now he has to show that he really is in touch, or else this will make him look very very weak.
EDIT 2: Yes, I did. I called him out on it. Once. I don't harp on it.
EDIT: Further making my point is that that dumbass, "work harder" post was what was said to me when I said I hoped we could still get some insurance regulation. There's an assumption by the poster that anyone who wants this sort of thing is clearly a dead beat. I have a bachelors from a Big 10 school, I work at one of the best gov't consulting firms in the country, I have the best insurance money can buy! I just care about other people, like Kate, Adam and my mother.