[Winstonm]

It is difficult for me to grasp how quickly the independent vote turned from overwhelmingly in favor of Obama. I believe disillusioned is the best word to grasp what happened in Massachusetts.

Obama had a mandate from the people for radical change - had he held to that vision the people would have held his detractors to blame. Instead, he tried to appease everyone and ended up with nothing but the blame.

John Kennedy he's not.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Jan 22 2010, 02:13 PM, said:

It is difficult for me to grasp how quickly the independent vote turned from overwhelmingly in favor of Obama. I believe disillusioned is the best word to grasp what happened in Massachusetts.

Obama had a mandate from the people for radical change - had he held to that vision the people would have held his detractors to blame. Instead, he tried to appease everyone and ended up with nothing but the blame.

John Kennedy he's not.

Actually I agree. I still think he is extremely smart and level headed and has been a good president and done a lot of good things. But he hasn't at all been the transformational leader I was hoping for. That being said there is still a lot of time to turn things around and there are plenty of good things I'm still hoping for, but I no longer think he is likely to be anything more than a good president.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Jan 22 2010, 02:13 PM, said:

It is difficult for me to grasp how quickly the independent vote turned from overwhelmingly in favor of Obama.  I believe disillusioned is the best word to grasp what happened in Massachusetts.

Obama had a mandate from the people for radical change - had he held to that vision the people would have held his detractors to blame.  Instead, he tried to appease everyone and ended up with nothing but the blame.

John Kennedy he's not.

I don't think there's a one-stop-shop answer, but I think that part of it, at least, is tied to the factor that has a huge amount of sway over presidential, congressional, and local elections - If the economy (or people's perception of the economy) is good, that's good news for candidates of the same party as the president, and if the economy is going bad, that's good news for the opposition party. McCain's numbers vis a vis Obama didn't tank until the stock market did. Although early (earlier) on in Obama's presidency, ecnomic conditions were attributed to the past administration, after a year, it's generally considered Obama's country now. Notwithstanding that presidents generally get too much credit for a good economy and too much blame for a bad one, things aren't outstanding economically now. In particular, unemployment is high, and perhaps more importantly, it's significantly higher than we heard it would be almost a year ago. Rightly or wrongly, that's bad news for Democratic candidates.

[kenberg]

Presidents keep thinking that they have a mandate when they don't. After W just barely squeaked into a second term he started talking of his political capital as if he had a divine appointment. In the case of Obama, getting folks to chant Yes We Can may be a good way to rally the voters but it's a mistake to think this will translate into support for policy. Folks love a good chant. People say that Obama gives good speeches. Not so, to my mind. He is very good at being emphatic, not so good about saying things that stand up over a period of time. This comes through after a while and I think it is hurting him badly.

Winston, I think I can explain pretty simply the disaffection of the independents. To some extent I am one. We, or at least I, were never so taken with Obama. McCain more or less self destructed. We were left with Obama. At least we weren't stuck with John Edwards as a choice. Obama seemed, and seems, capable of bringing in good talent, he doesn't appear to be an ideological nut, so give him a shot. Let's hope he doesn't screw it up too badly.

Really the presidency is too tough a job for anyone. Even the best cannot really be up to the task. John Kennedy became an icon only after he was shot. Before that, everyone was sick to death of stories about cute little John-John and glamorous Jackie. But we have to choose, so we choose, and we hope for the best. I suppose some have higher aspirations, but they will be perpetually disappointed.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Jan 22 2010, 03:42 PM, said:

Presidents keep thinking that they have a mandate when they don't. After W just barely squeaked into a second term he started talking of his political capital as if he had a divine appointment. In the case of Obama, getting folks to chant Yes We Can may be a good way to rally the voters but it's a mistake to think this will translate into support for policy. Folks love a good chant. People say that Obama gives good speeches. Not so, to my mind. He is very good at being emphatic, not so good about saying things that stand up over a period of time. This comes through after a while and I think it is hurting him badly.

Winston, I think I can explain pretty simply the disaffection of the independents. To some extent I am one. We, or at least I, were never so taken with Obama. McCain more or less self destructed. We were left with Obama. At least we weren't stuck with John Edwards as a choice. Obama seemed, and seems, capable of bringing in good talent, he doesn't appear to be an ideological nut, so give him a shot. Let's hope he doesn't screw it up too badly.

Really the presidency is too tough a job for anyone. Even the best cannot really be up to the task. John Kennedy became an icon only after he was shot. Before that, everyone was sick to death of stories about cute little John-John and glamorous Jackie.  But we have to choose, so we choose, and we hope for the best. I suppose some have higher aspirations, but they will be perpetually disappointed.

My thoughts are similar. I never expect to see a transformational president, and Obama is governing pretty much as I expected he would. I knew he would make mistakes, and he even cautioned that he could not be a perfect president. He should definitely have emphasized how the senate health bill controls costs (compared with doing nothing). But I'm still pleased to see Obama in place of the guy we had before.

I'm a lot less pleased with the people in congress, the whole lot of them.

I did not expect the democrats in congress to be as useless as they turned out to be. They had the chance to fix some things that obviously, desperately, need fixing and they have pretty much blown it.

And I did not expect every last republican to refuse to work together with the majority and Obama in a bipartisan way. Part of Obama's appeal during the election was, in my view, his stated intention to work with the other side. It seems that the political goal of undermining Obama trumps working for the public good, so far as the congressional republicans are concerned.

The whole crew makes me sick.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, here's my take on matters:

I think that Obama made the correct decision to focus on Health Care Reform (HRC) early in his first term. I think that this topic is critical to address. I think that the best time to have addressed this was directly after a mandate type election. [HRC is an enormous issue which has been plaguing President's since Teddy Roosevelt].

I think that the administration's tactics were flawed. In particular, I think that Rahm Emmanuel over-reacted to the Clinton's failures and ceded way too much responsibility to congress. They also wasted far too much time trying to find a token Republican willing to cross the aisle. We should have have used the 60 seat super majority while we still had it and rammed HRC down the Republicans throats.

The Republicans have made it clear that they are going to act in lockstep opposition to whatever the Democrats propose. They've made their bed... Now they can lie in it.

At this point in time, I'd like to see the Democrats step up to the plate, abandon all pretenses of cooperation, and do what needs to get done. To start with, they should ram through a real reform package using reconciliation.

[Gerben42]

Here's my take on the Mass. election. Massachusetts is a rather rich state, ranking quite close to the top on average household income (ranked 6th of 50 according to wikipedia). This means that perhaps they are not the largest interest group for Obama's healthcare plan, as this would mean that they would on average pay for the reform rather than be on the receiving side.

So from this point of view, it makes kinda sense. I mean, being without a job and without healthcare only happens to someone else, right?

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Jan 23 2010, 01:16 AM, said:

Here's my take on the Mass. election. Massachusetts is a rather rich state, ranking quite close to the top on average household income (ranked 6th of 50 according to wikipedia). This means that perhaps they are not the largest interest group for Obama's healthcare plan, as this would mean that they would on average pay for the reform rather than be on the receiving side.

So from this point of view, it makes kinda sense. I mean, being without a job and without healthcare only happens to someone else, right?

Income levels have relatively little to do with voting patterns in the US.

The two best predictors of voting behaviour are religious intensity and population density. In the MA election, urban centers went overwhelming for Coakley. The boonies went for Brown. (Coakley also very well in her home territory in Western MA)

Its incredibly annoying the Health Care Reform is going to get derailed because Coakley ran such a piss poor campaign. (I'm not disputing that there is some real backlash going on. Even so that election was easily winnable)

The one bright spot in this all is that Brown gave a real classy victory speech...

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on Jan 22 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

The one bright spot in this all is that Brown gave a real classy victory speech...

Yes, a real classic...

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jan 22 2010, 04:59 PM, said:

I think that the administration's tactics were flawed.  In particular, I think that Rahm Emmanuel over-reacted to the Clinton's failures and ceded way too much responsibility to congress.

for a start they could really look at the past

[kenberg]

Gerben42, on Jan 22 2010, 05:16 PM, said:

Here's my take on the Mass. election. Massachusetts is a rather rich state, ranking quite close to the top on average household income (ranked 6th of 50 according to wikipedia). This means that perhaps they are not the largest interest group for Obama's healthcare plan, as this would mean that they would on average pay for the reform rather than be on the receiving side.

So from this point of view, it makes kinda sense. I mean, being without a job and without healthcare only happens to someone else, right?

In a sense, this is right. Or at least it is the problem. I grew up in Minnesota, where Hubert Humphrey created the DFL (Democratic farmer Labor coalition). The idea was that the Democratic party was there to serve the needs of the working man and the farmer. They got a lot of votes on this basis. It's far from clear that the working man now considers the Democratic Party a friend. So they don't get so many votes.

Expecting people to put the needs of others before their own is hopeless. There are saints out there, but they do not form a voting majority. It's remarkable that Obama has been able to bring this along, and if he can somehow still work it through in some form, he deserves all the praise he will get.

I very much agree with brothgar's "In particular, I think that Rahm Emmanuel over-reacted to the Clinton's failures and ceded way too much responsibility to congress". As the bill went this way and that it looked as if nothing was really at the core of this, and that decisions were being made mostly to accommodate those with the most clout rather than those with the best ideas. This was not good.

Here is something I see as farther fallout: Clinton tried to deal with health care. Got hammered. Bush tried to deal with Social Security. Got hammered. Obama is trying to deal with health care, getting hammered. It's reasonable for the next president to decide that the key to a successful presidency is to not address any serious problems.

I would like to see our elected representatives, when they do all this nay saying, also state what they would support. Something such as: Put this suggestion in, and then I will vote yes. We do have problems that need to be solved, and these guys need to be reminded that they are being paid to solve them. The details of how to do this can be their problem.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Jan 22 2010, 02:21 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 22 2010, 02:13 PM, said:

It is difficult for me to grasp how quickly the independent vote turned from overwhelmingly in favor of Obama.  I believe disillusioned is the best word to grasp what happened in Massachusetts.

Obama had a mandate from the people for radical change - had he held to that vision the people would have held his detractors to blame.  Instead, he tried to appease everyone and ended up with nothing but the blame.

John Kennedy he's not.

Actually I agree. I still think he is extremely smart and level headed and has been a good president and done a lot of good things. But he hasn't at all been the transformational leader I was hoping for. That being said there is still a lot of time to turn things around and there are plenty of good things I'm still hoping for, but I no longer think he is likely to be anything more than a good president.

I agree Obama is still fairly intelligent and reasoned - but the major problem I now perceive in him is grit - character - an unwillingness to use the hammer when the hammer is the only solution.

[jdonn]

Yes, he is so concerned with trying to make many people happy that in many cases no one ends up happy, least of all those who supported the same thing that he originally did before waffling. I still think he is good though, I mean I got think of worse qualities in a president than "wants as many people as possible to be happy with any decision".

[cherdanno]

Gerben42, on Jan 22 2010, 05:16 PM, said:

Here's my take on the Mass. election. Massachusetts is a rather rich state, ranking quite close to the top on average household income (ranked 6th of 50 according to wikipedia). This means that perhaps they are not the largest interest group for Obama's healthcare plan, as this would mean that they would on average pay for the reform rather than be on the receiving side.

So from this point of view, it makes kinda sense. I mean, being without a job and without healthcare only happens to someone else, right?

The Massachusetts situation is rather peculiar, as it already had state-wide health care reform with many similar features as the one proposed by the Democrats now for the whole nation. It was supported by Republican Mitt Romney then and was also supported by Brown now. (His argument against the national plan was along your "there is nothing in it for MA" lines.)

Polling suggests that health care was not the deciding factor in this election. My impression is rather that there is a backlash against "Washington" - so the same backlash as all the time - which is just now turned against Democrats.

[mike777]

It would be interesting for a Brown voter to post why they voted the way they did.


I get the impression most water coolers would not have voted for him, if given the chance.


As for the Barack backlash, I don't see that he has lost even one water cooler voter. There may be a bit of unhappiness but we all expected that over time but I dont see that he has lost a voter.

[kenberg]

This is a case where I think the reasons, for the vote and for the opposition to health care, really do matter a lot. I am not that familiar with the details of the two candidates but I can imagine a voter saying "I think Brown is the better, more intelligent candidate so I voted for him". The media claims other reasons were the driving force, perhaps so.

I suppose reasons are always important but here is why I think that they are particularly important here. It has been suggested, here and elsewhere, that it would be possible to reconcile the two versions of the bill and then bring the result to a vote, bypassing a filibuster. I see nothing inherently wrong with this approach. Claiming that the filibuster rule allowing 41 senators to thwart the intentions of 59 senators is sacrosanct and absolutely legitimate, but the reconciliation rule is just awful trickery and beneath contempt, seems hard to justify. The Senate has its rules, and however wise or unwise those rules may be, it's fair enough to invoke the rules, either or both, to pursue one's ends.

So fair, yes, but wise? That depends on the will of the people. I saw a quote from some democrat along the lines of "If losing a seat in Massachusetts doesn't wake up the party, it's hopeless". Barney Frank has been quoted as saying we cannot just go on as if the election in Massachusetts didn't happen". This makes sense.

It would be good to know the extent of people's opposition to the health care bill(s) and it would be good to know whether the opposition is to this particular bill or whether they are opposed to doing anything at all about health care issues ever.

The optimistic view is that some changes can be made that would get a bill passed that would be seen by a large majority of citizens as a good bill. On matters involving our legislative representatives, optimism is hard to maintain.

[luke warm]

mike777, on Jan 23 2010, 10:29 AM, said:

It would be interesting for a Brown voter to post why they voted the way they did.


I get the impression most water coolers would not have voted for him, if given the chance.


As for the Barack backlash, I don't see that he has lost even one water cooler voter. There may be a bit of unhappiness but we all expected that over time but I dont see that he has lost a voter.

good point... i think people are giving their opinions as to why *others* feel a little disenfranchised, or why the republican party might not have gasped its last (which was pretty much the consensus here a few months ago)

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jan 23 2010, 06:55 PM, said:

good point... i think people are giving their opinions as to ... why the republican party might not have gasped its last (which was pretty much the consensus here a few months ago)

Making ***** up again...

[Winstonm]

The conundrum: it was "lucky" that Kennedy died when he did....

[Lobowolf]

mike777, on Jan 23 2010, 10:29 AM, said:

It would be interesting for a Brown voter to post why they voted the way they did.


I get the impression most water coolers would not have voted for him, if given the chance.


As for the Barack backlash, I don't see that he has lost even one water cooler voter. There may be a bit of unhappiness but we all expected that over time but I dont see that he has lost a voter.

The Water Cooler is a poor microcosm of the country at large.