- 8,406
- 41
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2009
Should've been Kennedy smh
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Back in the time of Brown V. Board of Education the vast majority wasn't progressive and most of the country did not believe in racialintegration, did that mean that it wasn't necessary? Without some sort of change health care companies will continue to jack up insurance rates and denytreatment to the ill because it makes them more money. Some of you are so naive, don't be fooled by these politicians they're getting paid off by theseinsurance companies to make sure that no bill gets passed.Originally Posted by 8tothe24
, Liberal Massachusetts saved the country from a mistake of a healthcare bill. Maybe now we can actually get healthcare reform instead of transform. Democrats would be stupid to force HC through, they fail to realize that the vast majority of this country is not progressive. The change they want is not the same change most voted for.
Originally Posted by trey ohh five
Back in the time of Brown V. Board of Education the vast majority wasn't progressive and most of the country did not believe in racial integration, did that mean that it wasn't necessary? Without some sort of change health care companies will continue to jack up insurance rates and deny treatment to the ill because it makes them more money. Some of you are so naive, don't be fooled by these politicians they're getting paid off by these insurance companies to make sure that no bill gets passed.Originally Posted by 8tothe24
, Liberal Massachusetts saved the country from a mistake of a healthcare bill. Maybe now we can actually get healthcare reform instead of transform. Democrats would be stupid to force HC through, they fail to realize that the vast majority of this country is not progressive. The change they want is not the same change most voted for.
[h1]Democrats point fingers after stunning loss[/h1]
From Ed Hornick and Kristi Keck, CNN
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Republican Scott Brown pulls off stunning upset win in Massachusetts
- Martha Coakley accused by some Democrats of running a lackluster campaign
- Other Democrats say they recognize voter anger toward Democrats
- Senate Democrats will lose their filibuster-proof 60-seat majority with loss
Boston, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Even before the polls closed on Tuesday night, Democrats were distancing themselves from Democrat Martha Coakley and blaming her lackluster campaign for her stunning loss in the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts.
A top adviser to President Obama rejected assertions that Tuesday's vote was a referendum on the president or Democratic policies and instead took a shot at Coakley: "Campaigns and candidates matter."
For weeks, Scott Brown had been the underdog candidate, running behind in the race to finish out the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's term.
Trailing by double digits a little more than a week ago, Brown had edged ahead of Coakley, campaigning as the pickup truck-driving candidate, capitalizing on voter frustrations and vowing to send Obama's health care bill "back to its drawing board."
Coakley, the state's attorney general, had been considered a shoo-in in heavily Democratic Massachusetts, which hadn't elected a Republican to the Senate in 38 years.
But as Brown gained momentum and Coakley's numbers fell, Democrats rushed big guns to campaign for her, including Obama and former President Bill Clinton.
Share your thoughts on the election results
In the hours after Coakley's concession speech, though, Coakley's pollster Celinda Lake fired back at criticism that she ran a weak and misguided campaign and failed to recognize Brown's surge until it was too late.
Instead, Lake warned Democrats that, "There's a wave here. The first shore was New Jersey and Virginia," she said, referring to Democratic losses in the governors races there, "the second was Massachusetts and it's coming to the island now, so we'd better do something about it."
Other Democrats appeared to recognize the anti-Washington sentiment the recent votes represent.
Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia said that the election "became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process."
While Democrats huddled to try to figure out a way to get their health care bill passed before Brown is seated and ends their 60-seat filibuster-proof "supermajority" in the Senate, Webb says it would be "prudent" for Congress to suspend further votes on health care reform legislation until Brown is seated.
Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-New York, said Tuesday night that the Massachusetts results demonstrated Democrats have to change their strategy on health care.
"Large numbers of independent voters saying they're upset about health care, that's not just their fault, that's our fault too. And we have to think about what we're doing wrong here, and to have a conversation as if nothing happened, whether you're in Massachusetts or not, is being tone deaf."
Brown warned in his victory speech that Democrats will face the same factors in the midterm elections in November that led to his win in Massachusetts on Tuesday.
"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises." he said. "They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it."
Heading into the race, few political analysts believed Brown, a state senator, had a serious shot at beating Coakley, the state's attorney general.
Brown was underfunded and unknown statewide. No Republican has won a U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts since 1972. Democrats control the state's congressional delegation. They also hold the state's governorship, along with overwhelming majorities in the state legislature.
But Brown, who is in his third term in the state Senate, charged forward on a pledge to end wasteful government spending and hand politics back to the people.
Before he was in the state Senate, Brown served three terms as a state representative. He's also a member of the Massachusetts National Guard.
"He's branded himself brilliantly. He has run as the people's senator," said Jennifer Donahue, a political analyst and contributor to The Huffington Post.
Asked in a debate last week if he was willing to sit in Kennedy's seat and block health care reform, Brown replied, "With all due respect, it's not the Kennedys' seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."
Donahue said that was the game changer for Brown because Coakley "didn't have an effective answer against that."
More so than a statement on the candidates' strength and weaknesses, it's discontent among voters in Massachusetts that swung the election, said David Gergen, a political analyst and CNN contributor.
"Scott Brown turned this into a referendum on what's going on in Washington, especially with health care. His campaign began to gain traction when he said that, 'I am going to be the 41st senator, the one who can stop a lot of this,' " Gergen said.
Gergen also pointed to a major sports gaffe that might have hurt Coakley's image in Red Sox nation. In a recent radio interview, she suggested that former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling is a Yankees fan.
"When she was clueless the other day about who Curt Schilling was ... you can imagine what that did," Gergen said.
John Avlon, author of "Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics," says in the end, the results of Tuesday's election rested in the hands of independent voters. Democrats far outnumber Republicans in Massachusetts, but there are more independents than Republicans and Democrats combined.
"Independents asserting their real power even in Massachusetts should be a huge wake-up call to Democrats and Republicans."
But no matter what the outcome, Avlon said this shouldn't be viewed as voters turning on Obama.
"I don't think it's a referendum on Obama necessarily personally, because he is still personally popular with many independents. It's the Democratic Congress that's being reacted against.
"Independents like the checks and balances of divided government. They dislike the ideological arrogance and legislative overreach that comes when one party controls both the White House and Congress. That's what you're seeing," he said.
CNN's Ed Henry, Jessica Yellin, Paul Steinhauser and John Helton contributed to this report.
Her career as a politician is over. She'll be lucky to get a nomination from the Democrats after this.
so what were they elected for?............ Exactly........... They weren't doing what they said they would, so they voted one of them out...The public has supported the public option in every poll... So if you don't give them what they want they will vote you out..Originally Posted by J Burner
The funniest/most pathetic excuse I've seen by democrats so far: "we lost this election because we didn't push our agenda fast enough..." LMAO, these idiots really, really don't get it. Yea, people thought you were moving too slow, so they elected someone who's going to bring you to a screeching halt, oh that makes perfect sense...a least some of the senate democrats are starting to get it, though.
Originally Posted by Essential1
so what were they elected for?............ Exactly........... They weren't doing what they said they would, so they voted one of them out... The public has supported the public option in every poll... So if you don't give them what they want they will vote you out..Originally Posted by J Burner
The funniest/most pathetic excuse I've seen by democrats so far: "we lost this election because we didn't push our agenda fast enough..." LMAO, these idiots really, really don't get it. Yea, people thought you were moving too slow, so they elected someone who's going to bring you to a screeching halt, oh that makes perfect sense...a least some of the senate democrats are starting to get it, though.
And Coakley also lost for incompetence..
Howard Dean seems to be sick of Democrats' bipartisan attitude.
In sharply worded comments Tuesday night following the loss of former Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) Senate seat, the former chairman of the Democratic Party asserted that party leaders needed to bypass their quest for sixty Senate votes.
"We've got to be tougher," Dean quipped. "I've said the Democrats are not tough enough. Bush would have had the health care bill done a long time ago. He would have gone through reconciliation."
Under reconciliation, Democrats can move to pass parts of their healthcare reform bill with a simple fifty vote majority, evading the need for a 60-vote filibuster-proof supermajority. Liberals lost their sixtieth vote with the defeat of state attorney general Martha Coakley in Massachusetts to Republican Scott Brown.
Brown has promised to vote against a healthcare reform bill. The bill has passed both chambers of Congress but would need to pass both again after the House and Senate versions are combined.
Some Democrats have proposed a House-only vote on the Senate's version of the bill, which would obviate the need for it to pass the Senate again. But House Democratic leadership seems reluctant to take up the idea anytime soon.
Dean says Obama should start by simply proposing a bill that allows all Americans over 55 to buy into Medicare. Such a bill could be passed through the Senate with 50 votes, a margin the Democrats can easily muster.
There's not much "real" reform in the Senate bill either way, Dean said.
The former top Democrat added that he believed it would have been better had Democrats only had 59 votes from the start, since it would have forced his party to make tougher choices and push the bill through reconciliation in the first place.
"I think we would have been better off if we had had 59 senators to start with," Dean remarked.
i'm with dean.
Nice rebuttalOriginally Posted by Friendliest Ghost
Originally Posted by trey ohh five
Back in the time of Brown V. Board of Education the vast majority wasn't progressive and most of the country did not believe in racial integration, did that mean that it wasn't necessary? Without some sort of change health care companies will continue to jack up insurance rates and deny treatment to the ill because it makes them more money. Some of you are so naive, don't be fooled by these politicians they're getting paid off by these insurance companies to make sure that no bill gets passed.Originally Posted by 8tothe24
, Liberal Massachusetts saved the country from a mistake of a healthcare bill. Maybe now we can actually get healthcare reform instead of transform. Democrats would be stupid to force HC through, they fail to realize that the vast majority of this country is not progressive. The change they want is not the same change most voted for.