The Barack W. Backlash Begins

[Winstonm]

The special election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat:

 

-Buoyed by a huge advantage with independents and relative disinterest from Democratic voters in the state, Republican Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 48-47.

 

Brown ® has eye popping numbers with independents, sporting a 70/16 favorability rating with them and holding a 63-31 lead in the horse race with Coakley. Health care may be hurting Democratic fortunes with that group, as only 27% of independents express support for Obama's plan with 59% opposed.

 

-In a trend that's going to cause Democrats trouble all year, voters disgusted with both parties are planning to vote for the one out of power

 

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/20...sachusetts.html

[neilkaz]

Even in liberal Mass, which has its own state health care plan, voters are starting to realize that the Dems in our federal gov't ramming this health care plan down our throats by force, isn't what the clear majority of Americans want.

 

Dems can wake up and smell the roses or start to lose seats.

 

Personally, I don't know ANYONE who wants this health care plan in the version about to be passed, and I live in Democratic IL, and work in very Democratic Cook County (Chicago)

[jdonn]

Even in liberal Mass, which has its own state health care plan, voters are starting to realize that the Dems in our federal gov't ramming this health care plan down our throats by force, isn't what the clear majority of Americans want.

 

Dems can wake up and smell the roses or start to lose seats.

 

Personally, I don't know ANYONE who wants this health care plan in the version about to be passed, and I live in Democratic IL, and work in very Democratic Cook County (Chicago)

Do you know anyone with a terrible disease who is unable to get health insurance?

 

Frankly I think many people don't know what they want. I also don't care much about the polls. At the beginning when there was much more support for some sort of reform I didn't see Republicans saying "gee this is what the majority of people want, let's get on board."

 

I'm actually sort of glad to see either party doing something they know is causing them to lose seats. It's refreshing in a sense, not that I think they are all doing this because they are saints either.

[Winstonm]

I found the interesting part of the poll to be how the independent voters seem to be so quickly abandoning the Democrats.

[Lobowolf]

I found the interesting part of the poll to be how the independent voters seem to be so quickly abandoning the Democrats.

I'm a little bit surprised by that, myself, though I did think that rumors of the Republicans' demise had been greatly exaggerated. When things aren't going well economically, it's bad news for the party in power, and it's a binary system. That's not going to change anytime soon. Having said that, I did expect that just about all of the negativity would be attributed to Bush for a couple of years. The downside of extreme hope is unrealistic expectations.

 

By this, I'm not referring to any lucid, rational Obama supporters who may think that things are moving for the better at a reasonable pace, but rather the less thoughtful ones who thought he was going to push a magic button and fix everything by last February.

[Winstonm]

Where I see disenfranchisement is with those who are rather shocked at how easily and quickly the illusion of "at long last a different breed of cat" was pierced. I don't think anyone - even the most ardent supporter - expected a quick fix to anything. But they were hoping for much more than a cover of "Do That To Me One More Time".

 

I think the Beltway has lost all touch with the heartland - eventually one would think that would matter.

[y66]

Backlash begins? Referendum on health care? Coakley loses to Brown? I think you're mistaken on all 3 counts.

 

Do you want Brown and 3 percent for $3? Or Brown and 3 to 1 odds on $1? If you lose, you also have to say that the health care reform bill, as imperfect as it is, represents real change and that you secretly admire Obama.

[Lobowolf]

I'll take the 3%

[y66]

You're on.

[Winstonm]

BOSTON – His health care plan in peril, President Barack Obama laid on a last-minute campaign trip to Massachusetts for Democrat Martha Coakley on Sunday with polls showing her struggling in an unexpectedly close race against Republican Scott Brown to fill the late Edward M. Kennedy's Senate seat.

 

I doubt Obama can turn the tide - his magic has faded faster than a Gilbert Arenas rookie card.

[luke warm]

BOSTON – His health care plan in peril, President Barack Obama laid on a last-minute campaign trip to Massachusetts for Democrat Martha Coakley on Sunday with polls showing her struggling in an unexpectedly close race against Republican Scott Brown to fill the late Edward M. Kennedy's Senate seat.

 

I doubt Obama can turn the tide - his magic has faded faster than a Gilbert Arenas rookie card.

with the new deal with the unions (which i think most of us would say stinks), it looks back on

[Winstonm]

01/15/10 7:10 AM EST

 

Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. "I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."

 

You say you want a revolution well you know,

We all want to change the world

[jdonn]

with the new deal with the unions (which i think most of us would say stinks), it looks back on

It's really upsetting to me. I have accepted lots of these compromises with groups and individual politicians as necessary realities to get something to pass. But it's starting to be way too much. I'm not to the point where I don't want it to pass, but trying to appease all these different groups is leading to a far worse end product. They would have been so much better off using the reconciliation tactic to require only 50 votes since then they wouldn't have to pander to all these people (although that might not have solved this particular problem it would have solved others).

[Winstonm]

The White House is hard at work tying to make the Massachusetts vote appear as not related to a referendum on the Obama presidency - but I think that is exactly what it is.

 

IMO for independents and progressives the shock of disappointment with this administration is staggering.

[hrothgar]

There is an old saying in German, often attributed to Bismark, but apparently dating back much earlier...

 

Je weniger die Leute darüber wissen, wie Würste und Gesetze gemacht werden, desto besser schlafen sie nachts.

 

Simply put, people have been complaining about these issues for hundreds of years, if not thousands...

 

I hope that the "backlash" against Obama is the media getting bored.

I like to think that American people have a real attention span.

(I'm prepared to be disappointed yet again)

[Al_U_Card]

The White House is hard at work tying to make the Massachusetts vote appear as not related to a referendum on the Obama presidency - but I think that is exactly what it is.

 

IMO for independents and progressives the shock of disappointment with this administration is staggering.

It is hard to do the bidding of the banking interests and have any time left over for the common folk...

[Winstonm]

If Brown ends up winning this thing, it will be another indication that health care reform is dead on arrival -- that the voters don't want it, and that it won't play well for Democrats anywhere in the 2010 campaign.

 

This quote is in an article written by some yahoo named Andrew Clark - he was making the point that Massachusetts has a history of dealing with a comparable health care state law and that by voting Republican Massachusetts is roundly denouncing the Democratic healthcare bill.

 

That may be true - but it does not follow from that assumption that"health care reform is dead on arrival -- that the voters don't want it". This is like the town of Big Whiskey rejecting Little Bill Daggett as sheriff and concluding from that the citizens don't want law and order.

 

The problem is this healthcare bill - it is viewed by many as a gigantic giveaway to business and not designed to solve anything health related other than the health of the Democratic Party's slush fund of corporate donations, which leads directly back to the two people Obama has relied on for advice: Rahm (party before people) Emanuel and Tom (sleeping with United Health) Daschle, and that then reflects on Obama's judgment, reliability, and motivations.

[y66]

Backlash begins? Referendum on health care? Coakley loses to Brown? I think you're mistaken on all 3 counts.

Ahem. Make that 2 counts.

 

From Nate Silver's 5:26 PM forecast today:

The FiveThirtyEight Senate Forecasting Model, which correctly predicted the outcome of all 35 Senate races in 2008, now regards Republican Scott Brown as a 74 percent favorite to win the Senate seat in Massachusetts on the basis of new polling from ARG, Research 2000 and InsiderAdvantage which show worsening numbers for Brown's opponent, Martha Coakley.

 

Not that anybody's throwing in the towel. But the window on that bet is now closed.

[Winstonm]

Backlash begins? Referendum on health care? Coakley loses to Brown? I think you're mistaken on all 3 counts.

Ahem. Make that 2 counts.

 

From Nate Silver's 5:26 PM forecast today:

The FiveThirtyEight Senate Forecasting Model, which correctly predicted the outcome of all 35 Senate races in 2008, now regards Republican Scott Brown as a 74 percent favorite to win the Senate seat in Massachusetts on the basis of new polling from ARG, Research 2000 and InsiderAdvantage which show worsening numbers for Brown's opponent, Martha Coakley.

 

Not that anybody's throwing in the towel. But the window on that bet is now closed.

Actually, this may be the best thing that could possibly happen to alert all politicians but especially Democrats that empty rhetoric will no longer be tolerated - walking the walk is now demanded, as well.

 

[jdonn]

One election will get a party to change its ways? I guess you have really bought into Obama's whole idea of hope.

[Al_U_Card]

Any bets on when (if?) the recovery gets here?

[Winstonm]

One election will get a party to change its ways? I guess you have really bought into Obama's whole idea of hope.

One has to be either incredibly naive or blindingly biased not to understand the significance of this election for the Democratic Party. In Massachusetts, there are 3 times as many Democrats as Republicans, but the largest group is independents. who have no machinery to get them out to vote.

 

This is a state that has had a Democratic Senate seat for 50 years and a state in which Obama obliterated McCain just over a year ago.

 

When you combine the amount required of disgruntled independents mad enough to vote along with the number of disillusioned Democrats not going to vote in order for the Republican candidate to win, then you have to be a political blind deaf-mute not to be able to read the writing on the wall or hear the murmurs of dissatisfaction echoing from the polling booths.

 

This type thinking is on many minds, I am sure.

 

Though he wasn't on the ballot, the president was on many voters' minds.

 

"I voted for Obama because I wanted change. ... I thought he'd bring it to us, but I just don't like the direction that he's heading," said John Triolo, 38, a registered independent who voted in Fitchburg.

[mike777]

One election will get a party to change its ways? I guess you have really bought into Obama's whole idea of hope.

One has to be either incredibly naive or blindingly biased not to understand the significance of this election for the Democratic Party. In Massachusetts, there are 3 times as many Democrats as Republicans, but the largest group is independents. who have no machinery to get them out to vote.

 

This is a state that has had a Democratic Senate seat for 50 years and a state in which Obama obliterated McCain just over a year ago.

 

When you combine the amount required of disgruntled independents mad enough to vote along with the number of disillusioned Democrats not going to vote in order for the Republican candidate to win, then you have to be a political blind deaf-mute not to be able to read the writing on the wall or hear the murmurs of dissatisfaction echoing from the polling booths.

 

This type thinking is on many minds, I am sure.

 

Though he wasn't on the ballot, the president was on many voters' minds.

 

"I voted for Obama because I wanted change. ... I thought he'd bring it to us, but I just don't like the direction that he's heading," said John Triolo, 38, a registered independent who voted in Fitchburg.

Winston clearly you have not been listening to Keith's comments about just how awful Brown is.

 

I am a shocked anyone voted for him.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#34927839

[y66]

Ezra Klein's take on the election seems right to me.

 

In February 2008, I wrote a cover story for The American Prospect setting up the choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. "The Manager or The Visionary," I called it. The idea was that Clinton promised a presidency familiar with the ways of Washington and based atop an unending series of discrete, measurable policy achievements. Obama promised something less quantifiable but potentially more lasting: A persuasive presidency that changed the way Americans thought about government. A presidency based more on the transformative template of Ronald Reagan than the ameliorative approach that came to define Bill Clinton.

 

It was a distinction Obama drew many times during the campaign. "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not," he famously said. In another lauded speech, Obama went to the New York Stock Exchange and echoed Franklin Delano Roosevelt's call for "a reappraisal of values."

 

But that candidate bears little relation to this president. The speeches are over, for one thing. Obama's use of the bully pulpit has been rare and restrained. He gave a major address on health-care reform when he needed to save the legislation in the Senate, but he didn't begin health-care reform with a big speech meant to explain the issue and his approach to voters. He talked up the passage of stimulus at his first press conference, but he never did what FDR did with the banks and explained clearly and slowly why stimulus was needed. A president who promised persuasion has instead offered legislation. And his speeches have been timed to affect the legislative process, not to convince the country of his cause and leverage popular support in his negotiations with Congress. It's been all inside game, pretty much all the time.

 

Similarly, the legislation itself has been built to pass rather than built to convince. Financial regulation, for instance, has never been about what should be done to the banks, but has instead focused on what Congress can find the votes to do the banks (though Obama's apparent insistence on the Consumer Financial Products Agency is a welcome surprise, even if it's only being communicated in private meetings with Chris Dodd). Health-care reform was compromised to begin with and then cleaved of its most popular elements as the process wore on. The administration knew the stimulus was too small when they sold it, but they never argued for a bigger package, and have resisted calling for a follow-up.

 

That's not a bad strategy, per se. Obama's presidency has tried to show, not tell. He's not given speeches about how government can work. He's not tried to change minds about the theoretical possibility of government working. He's tried to make government work. Winning achievements, not arguments, has been at the center of the administration's agenda.

 

But that's meant letting the government work. And that turns out to be an ugly thing, full of deals with pharmaceutical companies and concessions to Nebraska and delays and press releases and controversy and anger and process stories and confusion. Americans don't like Washington, and they like it less when they see it more. Obama's strategy has meant they see it constantly, and there's no one really guiding them through its thickets. The country is trapped in a sausage factory, and they want out.

I think Obama gets this. And this (from The Daily Dish).

 

"I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform. Because I do not think that the country would be well served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the senate rule which means that 59 are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of this process," - Barney Frank.

I hope so. I love theses guys. Wish we had more like them.

[jdonn]

One election will get a party to change its ways? I guess you have really bought into Obama's whole idea of hope.

One has to be either incredibly naive or blindingly biased not to understand the significance of this election for the Democratic Party. In Massachusetts, there are 3 times as many Democrats as Republicans, but the largest group is independents. who have no machinery to get them out to vote.

 

This is a state that has had a Democratic Senate seat for 50 years and a state in which Obama obliterated McCain just over a year ago.

 

When you combine the amount required of disgruntled independents mad enough to vote along with the number of disillusioned Democrats not going to vote in order for the Republican candidate to win, then you have to be a political blind deaf-mute not to be able to read the writing on the wall or hear the murmurs of dissatisfaction echoing from the polling booths.

 

This type thinking is on many minds, I am sure.

 

Though he wasn't on the ballot, the president was on many voters' minds.

 

"I voted for Obama because I wanted change. ... I thought he'd bring it to us, but I just don't like the direction that he's heading," said John Triolo, 38, a registered independent who voted in Fitchburg.

Agreed. So are you trying to imply Democratic (and Republican) politicians aren't "blindingly biased"? Because that's what it seems like, or otherwise you are just making points (which I mostly agree with) not leading to any conclusion...