Massachusetts: The Aftermath

ndm

-- What about the economy?
... Blue collar workers - never Obama's strongest constituency anyway - seem especially discontented. They're not bitter; just angry and feeling left-out.

I think economic discontent is a lot deeper than blue-collar workers. Pretty much everyone, except those on Wall Street and those who pander to their every wish, believes the economic situation to be dire. The American economy continues to face an assett stripping where anything not bolted to the floor is shipped off to China and the workers reassigned to the dole queue or a low-quality service job. Meanwhile, the financial services sector - or at least its upper echelons - reap the profits and the benefits of this asset stripping at the cost of everyone else. People are really pissed off at this dosconnect between the fortunes of Wall Street and Main Street.

And, frankly, given the past record of the Republican Party people would be far more pissed off were it actually in power today. The Republican Party has not been blamed for the stimulus bill being far too small and consequently having much less of an impact than it could have had. It is perhaps a measure of how grim the economy is that even the American Enterprise Institute was forced to admit the stimulus had brought economic growth of 4%.

-- So Obama should have delayed health care?
... On balance, no. Would health care have had a better chance of passing if it had been delayed until this year? I doubt it. Ideally it would have been passed before Christmas;

It certainly should have been passed before Christmas. Much of the delay, however, were attempts - misguided, it now appears - to get any Republican on board. The reality is that healthcare in America is in crisis and trending worse. The insurance companies have shown that, in the absence of a genuinely free market in healthcare, they will be utterly parasitic. And, no, moving to national provision - i.e. insurance regulated by the lowest rent state in the Union - will not help anything. It would just lead to many more people not having the insurance coverage they thought they had. The pharmaceutical companies have also proven that they too are rapacious in their desire for the hard-earned money of Americans. And regardless of the opinions of hard-core libertarians it is utterly ludicrous that the United States is not allowed to negotiate drug prices.

-- But aren't we just back to the December 2008 status quo? The Democrats have 59 votes in the Senate now as they did then.
...Numerically, sure, but psychologically, er, not so much. Things have changed. The President remains more popular than his party. He - and it - might do well to dwell on that and think of ways of leveraging that fact to their mutual advantage.

Given Republican shennanigans with the filibuster I think there will be much more pressure to alter the super-majority requirements. Personally, I like ordinary majorities but I suspect we might see a long-overdue move to drop the cloture requirement to 50 votes. I'm with Matthew Yglesias in abandoning the idea that the Senate is some kind of gentlemen's club.

There is one part of a President's agenda that isn't beholden to Congress - and that is foreign policy. Were I a hard-core Likudnik I would be nervous that Obama will have Mitchell try to bring a final - and long overdue - resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. That type of negotiation, since it does not involve preening politicians on the American side - can be kept pretty much out of the public eye. Although, the usual suspects will no doubt do all they can to support their racist friends.

Frank P

Fuck me, you're boring jock!

Snowman

Tons of column inches will expanded in arguments whether it was this or the other policy that swung it, or the profiles or campaigning of the two protagonists, or the economy and stuff like that. Golden days for the ndms. That’s missing the key point.

The Brown’s win in a state that was glued to its pseudo-liberal mast for 45 years signifies by far more pregnant phenomenon – the orientation of the whole republic in the years ahead. America has moved by a notch towards the course it prefers steering, and it ain’t the course set by the new captain. His compass is pointing to a misty future, and it doesn’t appeal what with dependence on the State looming larger than ever before. That's not the American way.

The horizon ahead wrapped up in the vacuous ‘hopeandchange’ rhetoric seems to have lost its lustre in just a year. The electorate woke up from the psychosis induced stupor of the election year, it began smelling a rat, and cast its vote for a step alongside a different track. More is to come, I reckon.

THX1138

Brown didn't use the word "Republican" in his campaign ads, literature, signs or on his website.

ndm

John Judis has an interesting yet unsurprising observation:

-- The age group that most strongly favored Brown was sixty-five to seventy-four-year-olds by 58 to 38 percent. The same group opposed national health insurance by 48 percent to 28 percent and thought the federal government couldn’t afford such a plan by 66 percent to 33 percent. This age group also included the highest percentage of voters--41 percent--who said they “strongly opposed” Obama’s plan.

Every person in that age cohort already benefits from national health insurance under Medicare. These sanctimonious hypocrits are, of course, the prime audience for cable news and especially Fox News which skews even more towards the senile than do the other cable news channels.

Beefeater

Frank P:

Surely you were entertained by the probing questioner?

Beefeater

ndm:

-"Were I a hard-core Likudnik I would be nervous that Obama will have Mitchell try to bring a final - and long overdue - resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem."

Have you ever met hard-core Likudniks? They've seen UN resolutions, New Year resolutions and "final" resolutions. They have met with the Mitchell - in his many incarnations - and have read all the Road Maps the Mitchells draw. Nervous? About as much as the Ayatollahs are in dealing with Obama. (But more polite).

- "That type of negotiation, since it does not involve preening politicians on the American side - can be kept pretty much out of the public eye."

Kept out of the public eye, like the Healtchcare negotiations? Behind closed doors, with one side locked out? That's the ticket. Can't argue with success.

-"Although, the usual suspects will no doubt do all they can to support their racist friends."

Relax. Obama knows that deciding between racist friends and racist enemies is a false choice.

DavidDP

"The Brown’s win in a state that was glued to its pseudo-liberal mast for 45 years signifies by far more pregnant phenomenon – the orientation of the whole republic in the years ahead. America has moved by a notch towards the course it prefers steering, and it ain’t the course set by the new captain. His compass is pointing to a misty future, and it doesn’t appeal what with dependence on the State looming larger than ever before. "

You've sort of missed the point about "Massachusetts Republican".......

"That's not the American way."
Uhuh. Massachusetts has been happily going down this route at state level for 40 years or more. Again, look at their own state healthcare- I doubt it's going to be got rid of, for example.

Conservative Cabbie

Alex

I'm afraid that's all a bit of a whitewash.

1. It's Coakley's fault.

In an overwhelmingly blue state, yo think that a 30 point loss of support that coincides with the giveaways to the unions, the Cornhusker kickback doesn't have anything to do with it? That analysis would be more valid if we weren't seeing similar things in other blue states. The GOP win in New Jersey, Barabara Boxer and Kirstin Gillibrand lead Republicans in polls by less than 5% in bluest of the blue California and New Jersey. More bad candidates I suppose?

"Was this a victory for the Tea Party movement?"

I don't think anyone is arguing this is a victory for the party of Palin, not even herself as she chose to stay out of the race. What this is is evidence that the party of Palin and the east coast Republicans can find common ground. Although I'm not sure you really know what the party of Palin is (ie a pragmatic conservative with good conservative credentials).

Of those who voted in Mass., 41% view the tea-partiers favourably. The majority of those are middle income earners (50,000-150,000) and the majority of those voted for Brown. The 50,000-150,000 demographic accounts for more than 50% of Massachusetts voters.

"No it's not. Election results are unicausal. There's some reason to suppose that the combination of passing economic stimulus, pressing ahead with cap and trade and chasing the Progressive Holy Grail of health care reform is too much, too soon in risk-averse times. The argument that the White House and the Democratic Congress over-reached is not without merit."

Agreed.

There is one thing missing from your analysis - Democratic arrogance and it's dismissal of the little people. Brown was identified by senior Democrats as an extremist and a tea-bagger and therefore by association his voters. Democrats spent all summer deriding American citizens who have the gall to be critical of the government:

"extremist mobs" by the Democratic National Committee, pawns of the insurance industry by Senator Dick Durbin, "un-American" by Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, "brownshirts" by Representative Brian Baird of Washington, "manufactured" and "Astroturf" by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, "evilmongers" by Senator Harry Reid, accused of "fear-mongering" by the president, and been deemed "political terrorists" by Representative Baron Hill of Indiana."

Democrats have a sense of entitlement and arrogance that I can't believe doesn't affect the way they are perceived by the ordinary voters.

In your analysis Alex, you have chosen to ignore the trend of blue and purple states going red, you've ignored the polls showing blue states going purple. I hope the Democratic electoral advisors choose to do the same.

DavidDP

"Brown didn't use the word "Republican" in his campaign ads, literature, signs or on his website."

Although he's hardly likely to have been thought to be anything else. Interesting though that he's started to come under fire from his own side for being pro-choice.

Conservative Cabbie

Alex

One final takeaway.

PPP with their final poll got the result almost exactly right (Brown 51, Coakley 46). It's therefore worth noting what they have to say about Obama's effect on the race:

"-This was a repudiation of Barack Obama. Certainly Martha Coakley was a bad candidate and ran a terrible campaign but that doesn't change the fact that we found Obama's approval rating at only 44% with the electorate for today's contest, a huge drop from the 62% of the vote he won in the state in 2008. Brown won over 20% of the vote from people who cast ballots for Obama in 2008, and we found that most of those Brown/Obama voters were folks who no longer approve of the job the President is doing."

PPP is as you probably know a Democratically aligned pollster.

Rhoda Klapp

As I've detailed over at Cabbie's blog, my US-resident fiercely democrat sister-in-law has had all kinds of health issues in the family. The proposed reform bill will not help her in the least. It will put up her taxes, and it will reduce whatever she gets from Medicare in the future, but it doesn't help with any of the struggles she has had with insurers and hospitals, co-pays and deductibles. She is middle-class, middle-income and democrat, and the plan will not help her. What is the point of it? Why would anybody expect her to support it? Has it not become a political battleground quite irrelevant to actually making health care better?

Oh, the post. Paid by the word? You could have just written 'wait and see'.

Rhoda Klapp

The Limbaugh party? This would be like the Peter Snow party here? Limbaugh doesn't have a party. He is not a politician. Palin/Beck is not a party, it's a movement designed to influence parties. Mainly the GOP but also centrist dems.

Vulture

Finely nuanced as ever, Alex, but as usual you don't see the wood for the trees : even when its a giant Sequoia that's about to fall on Obama's pretty boy head.

Americans are angry : in November they will vote en masse for anti-Obama candidates, be they liberal Reps, Indies, or neo-con loons.
Obama's stardust has become as toxic as radio-active waste.

He's through, mate. Done up, dusted, washed and hung to dry. And if you really were an authority on American politics you would acknowledge it with as much grace as you can muster.

Conservative Cabbie

NDM attacks America's elderly as "sanctimonious hypocrites" because they have the audacity to oppose the health care reforms. As he correctly noted, 48% of the group aged 65-74 opposed the legislation. Here's what he didn't tell you.

53% of 55-64 year olds disapprove
55% of 45-54 year olds dissaprove
54% of 35-54 year olds disapprove
46% of 18-34 year olds disapprove.

So in fact, the elderly are the second least likely to disapprove of Obama's legislation and then by only two points more than the youth of America.

An interesting attack on dear old Granny by ndm.

DavidDP

"Mainly the GOP but also centrist dems."

Centrist Democrats?! Palin/Beck don't even appeal to centrist Republicans.

Mainly because they aren't centrist.

DavidDP

"Done up, dusted, washed and hung to dry."

The evidence for this?

DavidDP

"It will put up her taxes, and it will reduce whatever she gets from Medicare in the future, but it doesn't help with any of the struggles she has had with insurers and hospitals, co-pays and deductibles."

Sounds like she wants an even more reformist approach than being offered at the moment by even the Democrats.

Rhoda Klapp

DavidDP. Yes, she would. She is envious of the NHS. Or would be if the mother-in-law had not suffered the full benefit of that organisation over here at the same time.

I would think the US could find some model of public/private health care working in some country somewhere and copy it. But what we see now is a 'reform' which will not improve the lot of most americans, and will cost them more. It is a major political football, a giant issue, but it isn't going to help most people. Which makes it pointless. I'd agree with Alex (!) and say it is an issue for the individual states. If it has to be federal, let them give it to a Beveridge figure and get it done, if not right, at least on a sensible basis. What we have now is a travesty. A mess.

DavidDP

Much like we can't go fully private, the US can't go fully public. It's a culture thing - behaviour is ingrained and you have to work with it. Both the US and UK would benefit from moving to a more mixed provision as you'd find in Europe, slightly weighted in the appropriate direction.

I agree that current proprosals are somewhat of a mess, but I would not interpret that as meaning that reform should be stymied. Hence my view that both sides need to "grow up" and that it would be a mistake for the GOP, as some seem to suggest, to just sit there and block.

I'm also sympathetic to the friction theory here - a bad reform may make it easier to follow up with good reform, in that once the notion that there can be a succesful reform bill is in place, further changes may be easier. An unsuccesful ending may make it difficult to do anything again for some time, which would be a disaster.

Vulture

@ DavidDP:

The evidence for this?
Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts.

DavidDP

"The evidence for this?
Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts."

No, that's not evidence for what you are saying. If it were, you'd be able to look back and show that any instance of a post-general election defeat for a party of an incumbent president was a harbinger of defeat at the next general election.

There's no doubt there is a lot of disatisfaction for Obama at the moment, although it's not all in a uniform direction. Some consider that he hasn't gone far enough, and that he has been too much of a "politician". Now, as has been pointed out, very rarely do people lose elections by not being too extreme and these people will always be disappointed, but I suspect that those voters aren't really the ones you particularly would champion.

Others feel that, yes, he has gone to far to the left. These would be most sympathetic to your viewpoint.

And others still are simply reacting to continued eonomic strife (it's interesting to note that amongst groups like this, Obama is blamed for the $800 billion bank bail-out put in place by Bush - Obama could perhaps benefit from a bit more Bush bashing, a la Reagan v Carter).

All in all then, not all those disatisfied with Obama are so disatisfied in the way you are and so one cannot draw such a conclusion this early on. The fact remains that Presidents suffering similar reverses at this stage or even later have gone on to win succesful second terms.

DavidDP

And, needless to say, some haven't, and some that are succesful at mid-term fail to do so too.

Rhoda Klapp

If sensible healthcare reform is to take place, (as is the policy of both parties) then it is not productive for one of the parties to have that reform, however badly done, as the badge of its success, and the other party the thwarting of it, however good,as the badge of theirs. What's the US equivalent of a Royal Commission? Oh, that wouldn't do, because one side or other will want to claim it, just as Labour claim the NHS although it was a tri-partite initiative.

Ben

".. elections are unicausal...".

What exactly does that mean?

DavidDP

"Oh, that wouldn't do, because one side or other will want to claim it, just as Labour claim the NHS although it was a tri-partite initiative."

I don't really think that's mattered in the long run. After all, Labour got kicked out 6 years after setting up "its" NHS.

I suppose the President could set up a special commission, with a bi-partisan make-up. Although how productive it would be is uncertain. And you would still have to get the result through both chambers, and so it would in the end come down to relying on both sides not to play games or pork-barrel.

You can see why Americans are disillusioned with Congress - it never gets anything done. Which is why I reckon just getting anything through would be good. Shows it can happen. It's always easier to do things the second time......

Conservative Cabbie

If anyone wants any evidence as to how dumb the Democratic Party have become, they may want to take into account the fact that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have referred to the respected libertarian think tank as a "right-wing extremist group". They'll be racist domestic terrorists next.

Conservative Cabbie

I forgot to mention the name of the think tank. It was The Cato Institute.

DavidDP

Faith restored in the US and in US conservatives.

A CBS News poll found 71% of Americans do not want the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate to run for commander-in-chief.

21% were in favor of her persuing a presidential bid.

The results differed along party lines, with Republicans far more supportive - but a consensus still emerged.

A majority of Republicans - 56% - said they do not want her to seek the office, with 30% in favor.

Democrats were decisively against a Palin bid, with 88% opposing a run.

Independents are strongly against a Palin run - 65% said they don't want her to run, with only 25% voicing support.

Almost a quarter of conservatives said they view her unfavorably, the survey found.

Among this demographic, considered Palin’s base, 58% said they do not want her to run, according to the poll.

ndm

Beefeater writes:

-- Kept out of the public eye, like the Healtchcare negotiations? Behind closed doors, with one side locked out? That's the ticket. Can't argue with success. (my emphasis)

This is batshit insane stuff. The Republicans were not locked out by the Democrats. As Republican refusenik Arlen Spector pointed out the Republican Party locked itself in its own tiny mind and refused to negotiate with the Democratic Party regardless of how hard President Obama and the Democratic congressional leaderhip tried to involve them. Republicanism is as open to ideas as was Stalinism.

ndm

Conservative Cabbie writes:

-- The GOP win in New Jersey, Barabara Boxer and Kirstin Gillibrand lead Republicans in polls by less than 5% in bluest of the blue California and New Jersey.

Last time I looked bluest of the blue California had a Republican Governor. Furthermore, Southern California is not exactly a hotbed of liberalism and Silicon Valley is certainly more libertarian than liberal.

Conservative Cabbie

ndm

That's the very conservative Republican Governor right?

That's two Democratic Senators
The state house and Senate are almost 2:1 Democrat over Republican
There are 32 House democrats to 19 Republicans
It voted for Obama by a 24% margin
And the last time it voted for a Republican in a Presidential election was more than 20 years ago.

Yeah I'd say it's the bluest of the blue.

Snowman

Even Adolf doesn't like it. Have a peep:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY