Near impossible. Third party candidates don't even get out of the single digits in percent of the vote normally. Ross Perot made an impact in '92 getting 18%.
RufRTs Obama Windup
- Thread starter RufRT
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
- Status
Near impossible. Third party candidates don't even get out of the single digits in percent of the vote normally. Ross Perot made an impact in '92 getting 18%.
go back and read it again Bob, then come back here and apologize profusely
There is a de-facto third party in existence in the USA....the Independants.
They made Obama in his presidential run and will be his ruin next time around
There will be no president for at least 2 decades (probably much longer) that doesn't come from either of the 2 major parties. Even indys still vote with the parties for the most part.
Spot on...this win is as big as it gets...I'd say seismic, but that is insensitive considering the unfortunate tragedy in Haiti.
The democrat bubble is burst...look for most of them to be center-right from here on out as at the end of the day, they have to look out for their hides.
A republican winning in Massachusetts...feck sakes.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves RufRT, he still has 3 years left to fix Bush's mess
He won't fix anything thats not middle of the road or right in policy now. Anything remotely left will be shot down by republicans and centrist members of his own party.
Reid will be out this fall.
Pelosi may follow.
Say goodbye to any lofty Obama agenda, its dead.
Goodnight folks, sleep well...I know I will
He won't fix anything thats not middle of the road or right in policy now. Anything remotely left will be shot down by republicans and centrist members of his own party.
Reid will be out this fall.
Pelosi may follow.
Say goodbye to any lofty Obama agenda, its dead.
Goodnight folks, sleep well...I know I will
You're dreamin buddy. No way, no how does that happen.
It's really not as surprising as it's being made out to be. Mass elects repubs, Romney. It's just being made a bigger deal of because it was Kennedy's seat.
I don't know that it spells the end for the Democrats. It's probably just a wake-up call for them to pay attention to what they're doing. Had they run a decent campaign with a decent candidate, they would have won.
healthcare was a big factor in what happened.
I think there was absolute rage from both the right and left and the Dems have paid for it.
you can analyze how poor a campaign Coakley ran, but this was a good kick up the Dems backside. I still think this is a blessing in disguise. Firstly it is a huge wakeup call and secondly they may think about passing healthcare through reconciliation. They never really had 60 votes..Nelson and Lieberman...at least now it is fact.
2010 will be interesting. The Dems will keep both houses but with reduced majorities.
Most probably they will pass the bill quickly. imo even as it stands it still helps many.
The GOP wants staus quo, which suits their masters.
The only way the Dems will be stronger is not run as 'republicans'. That is the lesson I think.
Obama was elected by promising never to be another Bush...but many of his reasonable actions..including health care were seen as caving in by many on the left. You don't just turn on a switch. Change comes slowly.
I will disagree the country is going back to the right. This is what happens when you are crushed by both sides.
And the independents are always a sliver. Many never register with a party. I for one will always vote Democrat, but I am not registered with the DNC. Though by fact that makes me an independent, I would not qualify as a true independent. That would also be true for many. A very few will vote both parties. Any national election is always determined by one or two percents. In fact the last one one of the biggest margins.
Funnily enough I think the Democrats will get more done.
Good stuff for us political junkies.
good call CR. This is in no way a national trend. Mass is an old fashioned Blue Collar state. Obama won many of the districts only Just.
The Dems though will be in real trouble if they don't start believing they were voted in For change and not to be Blue Dogs. Just think would the Clinton machine have lost if not for the thirst for change? HRC was destined for the Presidency...she did not read the mood of the country... Obama needs to remind himself fast or it maybe too late even for him in 2012.
this is a case study in how to lose where you cannot lose
...but tbf...the Dems finally were forced to listen...you cannot please everybody...I'm talking about congress. The people very much were in favour of a public option. If they had one, and twisted some arms, this would not have happened.
He won't fix anything thats not middle of the road or right in policy now. Anything remotely left will be shot down by republicans and centrist members of his own party.
Reid will be out this fall.
Pelosi may follow.
Say goodbye to any lofty Obama agenda, its dead.
Goodnight folks, sleep well...I know I will
Wrong mate.. he will go left..just watch.
the 60 votes was always an illusion. He will now get things done through reconciliation...err like Bush
I still hope you sleep well though....have those 'dreams'
I think Americans are increasingly sick of partisan politics. I think they want to vote more for someone who they think will solve their problems rather than just following a party. Anyone got an idea about the percentage of independents exactly? And have then been increasing consistently in the past decade or something? If so that's a trend that may continue if both GOP and Dem. continue to behave and act the way they do.
Its been tried over the past couple of decades without luck. Both parties are so ideologically entrenched with the population that any sign of a third party automatically ensures that one of the two existing ones will lose the Presidential election. In 1992 and to a lesser extent 96, Ross Perot ran populist campaigns for the White House under the Reform Party banner. He was ahead an the polls in 92 until he lost the plot and abruptly quit the race, only to change his mind and re-enter it, at which point the public had lost trust in him. He ran a somewhat more fringe campaign in 96 to no avail. In both cases Perot's entry in the Presidential race ensured that Bill Clinton won, and George Bush I and Bob Dole lost.
Same thing happened in 2000 and 04 when Ralph Nader ran fringe campaigns with the Green Party, only to have his inclusion in the race sifen votes from Al Gore and John Kerry and ensure two terms of George W Bush.
Therefore each party has spread itself ideologically wide enough to cater to voters who might ordinarily vote for third parties. The Democrats to the socialist and green party crowd, and the Republicans towards Conservatives and Libertarians. This is why we're not going to see a viable third party anytime soon.
It may need an exceptional figure to do it may be. I mean if Ross Perot continued in his bid smoothly, he would have won in 92...No?
Yes he had a chance at winning, but the point is that having a viable third party involves much more than a one off candidate who might be able to win. Political parties have broad "grass roots" support - organizers, volunteers, financial backing, political operatives etc. There is no room for that in the U.S. for the reasons i cited in my earlier post. Both parties have expanded their reach to engulf any potential third party options.
The only viable way a substancial third party would emerge is if one of the two major parties split.
Or if a party was formed that shunned all the political bullshit and muppetry we see in the states and just focused on doing their job effectively and left the nation in a better state than when they came to power.
It would never get the support of business. The banks and big business own American politics.
I should have appended "maybe its only a pipe dream"
But yeah, as an outsider looking in, it does appear to be that way, Mike.
Well, looks like healthcare's probably fecked now. The could try and get reconciliation done before Brown's seated, or try to get it through the House with no changes at all to the Senate bill. Don't fancy their chances at either.
It's incredible that Fox and the Republicans seem to have succeeded in convincing Americans that Obama's administration has some sort far-left agenda. A massive bailout for bankers - not disabled Native American lesbian recidivist dwarves, note - bankers... a weak as feck health care bill with no public option... a weak climate bill with huge giveaways for energy corporations... escalation in Afghanistan... no support for marriage equality... oh and he's cut more spending programmes than Bush. Yeah guys, he's a fecking commie and no mistake.
The Republicans meanwhile have presented basically zero ideas, instead going for pure, shameless obstructionism. Everyone knows things like healthcare and climate are impending disasters, but those nihilists care only about winning. And the people buy it.
Spastics.
It's incredible that Fox and the Republicans seem to have succeeded in convincing Americans that Obama's administration has some sort far-left agenda. A massive bailout for bankers - not disabled Native American lesbian recidivist dwarves, note - bankers... a weak as feck health care bill with no public option... a weak climate bill with huge giveaways for energy corporations... escalation in Afghanistan... no support for marriage equality... oh and he's cut more spending programmes than Bush. Yeah guys, he's a fecking commie and no mistake.
The Republicans meanwhile have presented basically zero ideas, instead going for pure, shameless obstructionism. Everyone knows things like healthcare and climate are impending disasters, but those nihilists care only about winning. And the people buy it.
Spastics.
I think the voters have most likely underestimated just how poisoned the chalice Obama inherited was. Whoever was in power was going to take the brunt of discontentment with the state of the economy and the labour market.
If you get in on a leftist (by American standards) agenda, then you should follow through with it. Obama's main mistake has been to compromise and take the pragmatic approach too often.
If you get in on a leftist (by American standards) agenda, then you should follow through with it. Obama's main mistake has been to compromise and take the pragmatic approach too often.
I agree. But I reckon they'll take the opposite message - that their only chance is to drift further right. There'll be a lot of senators out there thinking they're toast if they're associated too strongly with the mainstream of the party.
heard an interesting report on the radio yesterday about how Obama is doing in relation to his campaign promises. seems that he made 500 promises....
The St Petersburg Times has done an in depth study of them and graded them. This is much better stuff than the usual bickering and back and forth BS that's more common.
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises
The St Petersburg Times has done an in depth study of them and graded them. This is much better stuff than the usual bickering and back and forth BS that's more common.
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises
Good Morning everyone ! How is everyone doing today ?
Here's some light early morning reading for you...
Scott Brown has turned this town upside down.
Usually, the tendency among political reporters and operatives alike is to over-react and over-interpret elections.
And there are caveats to the stunner in Massachusetts. Yes, this was a special election, which often produce unusual results. Yes, Democrat Martha Coakley ran a timid, sometimes terrible, campaign for Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat. And it’s true that Massachusetts is not as liberal as many people assumed.
But none of that counters the stunning reality of an election where breathtaking results more than justify breathless analysis. Here’s why:
The lock is broken
There is no way for Democrats to spin an upside to losing their 60th vote in the Senate.
Without it, the health care bill that passed one month ago with 60 votes would go down today. Same goes for any other bill Republicans decide to torpedo with unity, obstruction or whatever one wants to call zero votes.
There are ways Democrats can jam through the current health care bill with procedural tricks or legislative creativity. But what seemed a certainty a week ago feels unlikely today. Don't take the word of Republicans or even reporters on this one. Listen to what Democrats are saying as they appraised the results overnight:
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) told a local reporter “it’s probably back to the drawing board on health care, which is unfortunate.” Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) told MSNBC this morning he will advise Democratic leaders to scrap the big bill and move small, more popular pieces that can attract Republicans. And Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said his leadership is “whistling past the graveyard” if they think Brown’s win won’t force a rethinking of the health care plan.
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who now might draw a challenge from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said the party needs to rethink its entire approach to governing.
The fear is unleashed
Any Democrat with even the faintest fear of a tough race in 2010 is rattled. It was easy for some to rationalize the defeats in New Jersey and Virginia last year - and even the flood of polls showing bad news since then.
They are in denial no more: if Democrats can lose in Massachusetts, they can lose anywhere. That is the mindset that will shape the next nine months for Democrats. It will affect who runs for re-election, who bolts on big votes, who gives money and who speaks out against Obama. All of this will make governing harder.
The focus has been on the special election the past week. But Democratic insiders were equally concerned about other signs of troubles that got insufficient notice: Polls show Democrats could lose the New York Senate seat; Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson’s favorable ratings plummeted in Nebraska; New polls showed Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) trailing badly in his swing district, and Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) is a statistical tie and in more trouble than previously expected.
Again, it's the appraisal of Democratic lawmakers overnight that speaks loudest. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) told us the results prove that unhappiness with political leaders has “gone mainstream” and could hit anyone. Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) said “when it happens in Massachusetts, it really throws us a curve. It’s a big deal for a lot of members here.”
The leaders are rattled
It has been an ugly 24 hours of blame-casting for Democrats. In fact, it's the first time in the Obama era that so many Democrats aired their private grievances in such a public way.
The White House blamed Martha Coakley’s campaign. Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed to fault Senate Democrats. Senate Democrats, in turn, put the blame back on Coakley, who by Tuesday night had campaign officials thrashing the White House and Senate leaders.
Chalk this up to frayed nerves. But the Democratic unity that brought health care to the brink of passage will be tested like never before in coming days. Democrats on Capitol Hill told us they could be headed for a major clash with Obama. The reason: Obama’s agenda – getting health care to prove he can govern and earn reelection – could quickly be in tension with lawmaker’s agenda of saving their jobs.
David Axelrod told POLITICO it would be a “terrible mistake to walk away now” and “leave the stigma of a caricature” of a failed bill and effort. Pelosi and Harry Reid agree – but many members are demanding they think again. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, speaking to the New York Daily News as results were coming in last night, put it bluntly: “If she loses, it’s over.”
David Plouffe, who ran the Obama campaign in 08, said in an email it's imperative Democrats not back down, calling it a "test of our party and whether we truely are ready to lead."
The angry independent wins
Ideologues and hard-core partisans dominate the leadership of both parties and the cable TV debates. But it’s the independents who are the deciders in most elections.
This voting bloc has swung decisively against Democrats, starting this past summer. A review of polling in Massachusetts, other states and nationally shows the same thing: By about a two-to-one margin, independents have turned on Democrats.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that two-thirds of independents plan would prefer Republicans controlled Congress. The same polls show the voters don’t even like Republicans. A CBS News poll showed only one-third of independents approve of Obama’s handling of the economy – a nearly 20 point drop in less than one year.
In all three big Democratic losses this past year – in New Jersey, Virginia and now Massachusetts – better than 60 percent of independents said they backed Republicans.
It would be a mistake for Republicans and Democrats to chalk this up to the health care bill. Independents consistently tell pollsters they aren’t happy with anything Washington is doing when it comes to the economy and domestic issues.
For the foreseeable future, the wrath of independents will hit Democrats hardest.
Democrats are right that polls show the vast majority of the public holds Republicans in even lower esteem. But that might not matter because they blew the last two elections – and no longer own what Washington does.
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and others are bragging that they have a real shot at winning back the House. They would need to net 40 seats to do so.
Republicans say the have recruited some quality candidates in winnable seats. Democrats grudgingly agree. But Republicans are getting their clocks cleaned when it comes to fundraising, especially by the House campaign committees. Democrats gleefully agree.
The special election – and the enthusiasm it has generated among conservatives – will make it a lot easier for the GOP to raise money and recruit volunteers. It gives conservatives, many of whom remain frustrated by memories of free-spending Republicans when they controlled things, now have a cause. The NRCC blasted out a fundraising appeal overnight – and plans to leverage the results to convince candidates to run in races once seen as unwinnable. GOP fundraisers says the special election – combined with Obama’s new attacks on Wall Street – has some big companies hedging their bets by investing more in the minority.
Cantor told us earlier this month Republicans will spend most of their money and energy running negative campaigns. It’s a convenient way of glossing over the party’s own weaknesses—and Brown proved this can be effective.
The Obama magic has disappeared
Think back a year ago and imagine someone saying Obama would throw his support behind Democrats in New Jersey, Virginia and Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts - and lose all of them.
Think back a year ago and imagine someone saying he would celebrate his one-year anniversary without having gotten health care, financial regulation or energy legislation signed into law. And that less than 50 percent of the public would hold a favorable view of his presidency.
Obama clearly remains popular at the personal level, a big asset that Republicans privately concede could easily help turn things around for this White House in the months ahead. But it is similarly clear that the Obama magic of 2008 has vanished. His personal popularity is plainly not transferable to other Democrats. His power with Democrats is somewhat diminished.
So much now rides on health care for Obama. His top advisers have told reporters for months he will be judged on one issue and one issue alone: getting health care signed into law. They now realize the bill – and with it Obama’s reputation and leverage on Capitol Hill – could go down. As they look ahead to the rest of the year, White House advisers talk publicly of bold action but most of the talk in private is smaller, less controversial action. Deficits. Incremental changes to energy policy. Debt commissions.
This is not the way Obama—or many of the people watching him at his inaugural address a year ago-expected that he would mark his first anniversary.
Read more: Dazed Democrats rethink entire strategy - Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen - POLITICO.com
Read more: Dazed Democrats rethink entire strategy - Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen - POLITICO.com
Read more: Dazed Democrats rethink entire strategy - Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen - POLITICO.com
Here's some light early morning reading for you...
Scott Brown has turned this town upside down.
Usually, the tendency among political reporters and operatives alike is to over-react and over-interpret elections.
And there are caveats to the stunner in Massachusetts. Yes, this was a special election, which often produce unusual results. Yes, Democrat Martha Coakley ran a timid, sometimes terrible, campaign for Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat. And it’s true that Massachusetts is not as liberal as many people assumed.
But none of that counters the stunning reality of an election where breathtaking results more than justify breathless analysis. Here’s why:
The lock is broken
There is no way for Democrats to spin an upside to losing their 60th vote in the Senate.
Without it, the health care bill that passed one month ago with 60 votes would go down today. Same goes for any other bill Republicans decide to torpedo with unity, obstruction or whatever one wants to call zero votes.
There are ways Democrats can jam through the current health care bill with procedural tricks or legislative creativity. But what seemed a certainty a week ago feels unlikely today. Don't take the word of Republicans or even reporters on this one. Listen to what Democrats are saying as they appraised the results overnight:
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) told a local reporter “it’s probably back to the drawing board on health care, which is unfortunate.” Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) told MSNBC this morning he will advise Democratic leaders to scrap the big bill and move small, more popular pieces that can attract Republicans. And Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said his leadership is “whistling past the graveyard” if they think Brown’s win won’t force a rethinking of the health care plan.
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who now might draw a challenge from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said the party needs to rethink its entire approach to governing.
The fear is unleashed
Any Democrat with even the faintest fear of a tough race in 2010 is rattled. It was easy for some to rationalize the defeats in New Jersey and Virginia last year - and even the flood of polls showing bad news since then.
They are in denial no more: if Democrats can lose in Massachusetts, they can lose anywhere. That is the mindset that will shape the next nine months for Democrats. It will affect who runs for re-election, who bolts on big votes, who gives money and who speaks out against Obama. All of this will make governing harder.
The focus has been on the special election the past week. But Democratic insiders were equally concerned about other signs of troubles that got insufficient notice: Polls show Democrats could lose the New York Senate seat; Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson’s favorable ratings plummeted in Nebraska; New polls showed Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) trailing badly in his swing district, and Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) is a statistical tie and in more trouble than previously expected.
Again, it's the appraisal of Democratic lawmakers overnight that speaks loudest. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) told us the results prove that unhappiness with political leaders has “gone mainstream” and could hit anyone. Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) said “when it happens in Massachusetts, it really throws us a curve. It’s a big deal for a lot of members here.”
The leaders are rattled
It has been an ugly 24 hours of blame-casting for Democrats. In fact, it's the first time in the Obama era that so many Democrats aired their private grievances in such a public way.
The White House blamed Martha Coakley’s campaign. Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed to fault Senate Democrats. Senate Democrats, in turn, put the blame back on Coakley, who by Tuesday night had campaign officials thrashing the White House and Senate leaders.
Chalk this up to frayed nerves. But the Democratic unity that brought health care to the brink of passage will be tested like never before in coming days. Democrats on Capitol Hill told us they could be headed for a major clash with Obama. The reason: Obama’s agenda – getting health care to prove he can govern and earn reelection – could quickly be in tension with lawmaker’s agenda of saving their jobs.
David Axelrod told POLITICO it would be a “terrible mistake to walk away now” and “leave the stigma of a caricature” of a failed bill and effort. Pelosi and Harry Reid agree – but many members are demanding they think again. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, speaking to the New York Daily News as results were coming in last night, put it bluntly: “If she loses, it’s over.”
David Plouffe, who ran the Obama campaign in 08, said in an email it's imperative Democrats not back down, calling it a "test of our party and whether we truely are ready to lead."
The angry independent wins
Ideologues and hard-core partisans dominate the leadership of both parties and the cable TV debates. But it’s the independents who are the deciders in most elections.
This voting bloc has swung decisively against Democrats, starting this past summer. A review of polling in Massachusetts, other states and nationally shows the same thing: By about a two-to-one margin, independents have turned on Democrats.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that two-thirds of independents plan would prefer Republicans controlled Congress. The same polls show the voters don’t even like Republicans. A CBS News poll showed only one-third of independents approve of Obama’s handling of the economy – a nearly 20 point drop in less than one year.
In all three big Democratic losses this past year – in New Jersey, Virginia and now Massachusetts – better than 60 percent of independents said they backed Republicans.
It would be a mistake for Republicans and Democrats to chalk this up to the health care bill. Independents consistently tell pollsters they aren’t happy with anything Washington is doing when it comes to the economy and domestic issues.
For the foreseeable future, the wrath of independents will hit Democrats hardest.
Democrats are right that polls show the vast majority of the public holds Republicans in even lower esteem. But that might not matter because they blew the last two elections – and no longer own what Washington does.
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and others are bragging that they have a real shot at winning back the House. They would need to net 40 seats to do so.
Republicans say the have recruited some quality candidates in winnable seats. Democrats grudgingly agree. But Republicans are getting their clocks cleaned when it comes to fundraising, especially by the House campaign committees. Democrats gleefully agree.
The special election – and the enthusiasm it has generated among conservatives – will make it a lot easier for the GOP to raise money and recruit volunteers. It gives conservatives, many of whom remain frustrated by memories of free-spending Republicans when they controlled things, now have a cause. The NRCC blasted out a fundraising appeal overnight – and plans to leverage the results to convince candidates to run in races once seen as unwinnable. GOP fundraisers says the special election – combined with Obama’s new attacks on Wall Street – has some big companies hedging their bets by investing more in the minority.
Cantor told us earlier this month Republicans will spend most of their money and energy running negative campaigns. It’s a convenient way of glossing over the party’s own weaknesses—and Brown proved this can be effective.
The Obama magic has disappeared
Think back a year ago and imagine someone saying Obama would throw his support behind Democrats in New Jersey, Virginia and Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts - and lose all of them.
Think back a year ago and imagine someone saying he would celebrate his one-year anniversary without having gotten health care, financial regulation or energy legislation signed into law. And that less than 50 percent of the public would hold a favorable view of his presidency.
Obama clearly remains popular at the personal level, a big asset that Republicans privately concede could easily help turn things around for this White House in the months ahead. But it is similarly clear that the Obama magic of 2008 has vanished. His personal popularity is plainly not transferable to other Democrats. His power with Democrats is somewhat diminished.
So much now rides on health care for Obama. His top advisers have told reporters for months he will be judged on one issue and one issue alone: getting health care signed into law. They now realize the bill – and with it Obama’s reputation and leverage on Capitol Hill – could go down. As they look ahead to the rest of the year, White House advisers talk publicly of bold action but most of the talk in private is smaller, less controversial action. Deficits. Incremental changes to energy policy. Debt commissions.
This is not the way Obama—or many of the people watching him at his inaugural address a year ago-expected that he would mark his first anniversary.
Read more: Dazed Democrats rethink entire strategy - Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen - POLITICO.com
Read more: Dazed Democrats rethink entire strategy - Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen - POLITICO.com
Read more: Dazed Democrats rethink entire strategy - Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen - POLITICO.com
American voters have been trained to believe that gridlock is a good thing, which is why whenever one party happens to gain a super majority (executive and legislative), they vote in the opposing party during the off year or mid term elections to balance things out. I don't think the Democrats are going to back down on health care either way.
thats a common misconception. Some blame low voter turnout as well, but yesterdays election had an very high turnout.
Old theories don't apply here...this is a sea change in the works.
What a difference a year makes eh ? change we can believe in.
They may have no option on healthcare left. The only way it can happen now is if the house passes the senate version untouched...and considering the squeeky thin vote the first time in the house, it won't happen. House members whose votes would be needed are already on the record as saying they won't pass the senate version carte blanche.
Best option for Obama is to signal a restart and really approach it in a true bipartisan, no special interest concession, tort reform included manner. His Ego will get in the way though.
Sad and true. There's a real trend with them to see obstruction as the means and ends. Rurft's notion of "lofty ideals" as something to be quashed. Sort of a glib ignorance vs. anything from Obama.
Ruinously partisan.
bullshit, bad policy is bad policy no matter how badly you want bipartisanship or healthcare reform.
the defections begin....
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) has joined Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) in warning leaders not to try to push a revised health care reform bill through the Senate before newly elected Republican Scott Brown arrives.
McCaskill said Wednesday morning that the agenda is "going too far, too fast" and that it would be a "huge mistake" for Democrats to force a vote on a new bill in the Senate before the new senator from Massachusetts is seated.
"As I said to somebody last night:, everybody needs to get the Washington wax out of their ears and listen and pay attention that people out there believe that we are going too far, too fast," McCaskill told POLITICO.
At the same time, however, McCaskill defended the administration's approach, saying the president inherited an economic recession that he couldn't resolve with "little itty-bitty baby steps."
"You take the big things we had to do, as related to the economy, and you combine that with the frustration of the American people and a big health care bill that frankly, because it was big and complicated, it lent itself to this almost virulent misinformation that got out there," McCaskill said. "The more those seeds planted, the more they flourished in that environment, and I think now we've got to hunker down and be realistic about what we can accomplish and certainly realize that if we don't pay attention to what the voters say in Massachusetts, then I think we do so at the peril of our party's effectiveness."
But she added that Obama is keeping his campaign promise by trying to pass a health care bill.
"You know what this president tried to do, which is different, he did what he said he was going to do," McCaskill said. "If you look at the steps he's taken, he's trying to keep his word to the voters that elected him."
McCaskill said "one alternative" would be for the House to accept the Senate's health care bill with no changes, but she strongly rejected the idea of trying to pass a revised bill through the Senate before Brown arrives in Washington — and takes away the Democrats’ 60th vote.
"I've said to the leader, 'I don't think it's a good idea for us to try to pass another bill in the Senate before Sen. Scott Brown is seated," McCaskill said. "I think that's a bad idea.
"We passed a bill that I think over the long haul, that I think will bring down the deficit and bring down health care costs. ... but I don’t think we should try — after the voters of Massachusetts have spoken — I think it would be a huge mistake to try to ignore what they expressed yesterday to try to put something through the Senate before Sen. Brown gets here."
Read more: Claire McCaskill: No forced Senate health care bill - Man Utd Raju - POLITICO.com
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) has joined Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) in warning leaders not to try to push a revised health care reform bill through the Senate before newly elected Republican Scott Brown arrives.
McCaskill said Wednesday morning that the agenda is "going too far, too fast" and that it would be a "huge mistake" for Democrats to force a vote on a new bill in the Senate before the new senator from Massachusetts is seated.
"As I said to somebody last night:, everybody needs to get the Washington wax out of their ears and listen and pay attention that people out there believe that we are going too far, too fast," McCaskill told POLITICO.
At the same time, however, McCaskill defended the administration's approach, saying the president inherited an economic recession that he couldn't resolve with "little itty-bitty baby steps."
"You take the big things we had to do, as related to the economy, and you combine that with the frustration of the American people and a big health care bill that frankly, because it was big and complicated, it lent itself to this almost virulent misinformation that got out there," McCaskill said. "The more those seeds planted, the more they flourished in that environment, and I think now we've got to hunker down and be realistic about what we can accomplish and certainly realize that if we don't pay attention to what the voters say in Massachusetts, then I think we do so at the peril of our party's effectiveness."
But she added that Obama is keeping his campaign promise by trying to pass a health care bill.
"You know what this president tried to do, which is different, he did what he said he was going to do," McCaskill said. "If you look at the steps he's taken, he's trying to keep his word to the voters that elected him."
McCaskill said "one alternative" would be for the House to accept the Senate's health care bill with no changes, but she strongly rejected the idea of trying to pass a revised bill through the Senate before Brown arrives in Washington — and takes away the Democrats’ 60th vote.
"I've said to the leader, 'I don't think it's a good idea for us to try to pass another bill in the Senate before Sen. Scott Brown is seated," McCaskill said. "I think that's a bad idea.
"We passed a bill that I think over the long haul, that I think will bring down the deficit and bring down health care costs. ... but I don’t think we should try — after the voters of Massachusetts have spoken — I think it would be a huge mistake to try to ignore what they expressed yesterday to try to put something through the Senate before Sen. Brown gets here."
Read more: Claire McCaskill: No forced Senate health care bill - Man Utd Raju - POLITICO.com
This makes absolutely no sense. Yesterday's vote is consistent with a long term trend of correcting imbalances where one party has too much control during off year or mid term elections. The Democrats still control everything and no longer have a super majority in the Senate, which is easily surmountable of other issues by getting Olympia Snow or Susan Collins on board.
??????
You're off base once again Raoul (first it was healthcare bill "supported by a majority"....whoops, polls tell a different story).
The only way they get emboldened republicans on board now is through a true bipartisan outreach. Hell, they are going to have to be more center just to keep their own moderate dems.
The dream of the Obama agenda is dead. You didn't believe what I said in November but it was evident again yesterday. Time will prove you wrong again.
Here you go Raoul...turns out I'm not the only one who thinks your view is naive....
Nor can Democratic sympathizers explain the results with arcane political arguments, such as that Republicans do better in low turnout off-year and special elections. To the contrary, the drama of a Democrat struggling to retain Kennedy’s seat brought the most voters to the polls in a nonpresidential election in Massachusetts since 1990, The Associated Press reported. What’s more, both the appeal of Brown’s rhetoric and the changed arithmetic caused by his election — Democrats lost their 60th Senate vote and their filibuster-proof majority — call into question the White House's "big bang" strategy of passing broad economic, health, and environmental reforms in its first year. The last two of these may stall in the wake of the Massachusetts vote.
In his victory speech, Brown—a telegenic 50-year-old state senator—rubbed in Democrats' dilemma.
Nor can Democratic sympathizers explain the results with arcane political arguments, such as that Republicans do better in low turnout off-year and special elections. To the contrary, the drama of a Democrat struggling to retain Kennedy’s seat brought the most voters to the polls in a nonpresidential election in Massachusetts since 1990, The Associated Press reported. What’s more, both the appeal of Brown’s rhetoric and the changed arithmetic caused by his election — Democrats lost their 60th Senate vote and their filibuster-proof majority — call into question the White House's "big bang" strategy of passing broad economic, health, and environmental reforms in its first year. The last two of these may stall in the wake of the Massachusetts vote.
In his victory speech, Brown—a telegenic 50-year-old state senator—rubbed in Democrats' dilemma.
The need for health care reform is still supported by the majority, however the support for the House and Senate bills has dipped below 50%.
I don't think there's a need for Obama to get all Republicans on board. The old guard right wingers like Mitch McConnell, Saxby Chambliss, John Ensign, Inhofe, etc will never agree to any sort of reform. He just needs to get Susan Collins and Olympia Snow on board. Their political leanings are closer to blue dog Dems than Republicans and so it would basically just require a reworking of the issues that Snow and or Collins find objectionable in the bill.
No, you've consistently defined yourself by what you aren't. Not sure what exactly you ARE other than a reflexive "messiah" hater that likes to glibly spew trite, one-sided, shallow nonsense. Your posts convey little more than a petty snicker at the expense of someone vainly trying to foster actual bipartisanship. If anything, we and our current perverse political system don't deserve the man.
"Lofty ideals", "hope", "change". What silly notions from the 'messiah'.
I think I'm going to puke...what fanboy tripe
You're late to the game...attacking me personally ended 5 pages ago...
First, i deleted the article because you're pasting too many of them in this thread. Please paste the key part of the article and link to the rest of it
so we can avoid the clutter.
Second, I'm not interested in what some journalist has to say in order to get eyeballs on his piece.
The theme that has played itself out in three off year elections is no different than what swept the Republicans into Congress in 94. Voter discontent, mid term paranoia that one party as too much power, and a general feeling of cynicism fueled by radio and tv pundits. What happened yesterday is no more than just that. People who try to attach special significance to it are doing so because they have an obstructionist agenda and are trying to play the result as having a magical significance. At the end of the day, the health care bill will probably still go on with a few more compromises in place. Politics as usual.
Yep. Sums it up nicely.
Cynicism and fear mongering are easy. Governing with a positive agenda, not so much.
- Status