It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure this out: A Democratic president and Congress governed to the left and angered a center-right nation. Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts sent a signal that voters did not want comprehensive health care reform. And the Democrats ignored the voters. President Obama was elected thanks to independents worried about the economy and as thanks, he and the Democrats added substantially to the deficit, passed a trillion dollar health reform law, and arrogantly told voters they’d learn to love it all.
The result was Tuesday night, and a repudiation of government intrusion. Democrats saved a few Senate due to union assistance and a few weak GOP Tea Party candidates. But the voters have spoken, and Obama has to move right or he’ll lose badly in 2012. I wonder if he’s capable of change?
Ahead of the Game
Behind the Zion Curtain
Bishop’s Counsel
Blogging the Rambler
Boxing, MMA News
Economics, etc.
Eye of Faith
In-A-Gadda-Da-Vegan
Inside the Ropes
Orrin’s Musings
Prep Sports Spotlight
Standard.Net Development
Standing Out
The Baseball Report
The Political Surf
Through My Lens
Why are you crying?
WSU Sports Blog
Are you sure voters didn’t “refudiate” government intrusion, you mindless follower?
You’re right. And Obama IS capable of change. In fact, he has been a voice of change throughout his political career and has definitely not been far left by any stretch of the imagination. So it will not be difficult for him to, as you ask, move even more toward the center.
I do disagree, however, that the overwhelming Republican win was a repudiation of “government intrusion.” It was a repudiation of government not fixing people’s problems — the housing market, the jobs’ numbers, the economy at large. The “government intrusion” factor sang well as a response to Obamacare, but had Obama been able to dent the down economy in general, no story.
We’ll see, won’t we. After getting one’s butt kicked, it is tough to see any glimmer of light, but I did note with humor that those winning Tea Partiers all promised once again to go to Washington and reverse Obamacare!!!!!!!!! Oh? And how will they do that with only the House and their loud promises for ammo? They will find that it is easier to scream about big government than to actually come up with a workable plan to change it.
That said, I guess they deserve to have their night!
Um, Gordo, old Ms. “refudiate” or whatever you want to call her kicked some serious butt last night, including, it seems, yours. So, you think being nasty and condescending is going to win back voters for you? In fact, it doesn’t even win me to you side, which I proabably already was on!
Play nice. Be opinionated, be strong, be bold … but play fair. That’s the problem these days in politics. Make change at home.
No mandate against health care reform:
“Exit polls show health as the second most important factor driving votes (19 percent). It was distantly behind the economy (62 percent). While half wanted the health law repealed nearly another half wanted it expanded or kept in place.”
Tim:
Christine O’Donnell lost. Tom Tancredo lost. Carly Fiorina lost. Sharon Angle lost. Joe Miller is likely to lose.
All were major candidates backed by Palin. Not sure “kicked some serious butt” is the right way to describe what happened.
Daniel, while I would love reality to be different, I’ll stick with my “we got our butts kicked” message. You are right to the point you went. But I’m not counting actual and true human-being-losers like O’Donnell, Tancredo and Angle, who all lost because of their own ridiculousness, not because of any great Democrat challenging them. Let’s say we were lucky that ridiculous people/primary voters showed their mental squallor in some cases. We wewren’t so lucky in other cases.
Tim, Re: “It was a repudiation of government not fixing people’s problems — the housing market, the jobs’ numbers, the economy at large. The “government intrusion” factor sang well as a response to Obamacare, but had Obama been able to dent the down economy in general, no story.” … You are right, but I do think the refusal to listen to voters hurt Democrats. Also, I agree health care will not be repealed, but parts of it can be defunded. I expect Obama to propose tort reform as an olive branch.
Why focus on the small potatoes stuff. No US government is going to balance anything without a major defunding of the US military, period. Biggest single budget department, with only token cuts (F22 Raptor is one that comes to mind) … could decrease the military budget $100B per fiscal year and still be a safe nation …. but hey, lets focus on something that might save a couple Billion .. yes, still big money on an individual scale, but the big picture, lets focus on it people.
Starting in January when the new republican majority get into the House we all will be watching for all of the ‘fixes’ they claimed during campaigning. You cannot be critical of Obama not doing what they want as quickly as they wanted and not be subjected to the same criticism.
I have to chuckle when I hear the claim of repealing health care reform – do you really think we should go back to being denied coverage for an existing condition? Or that we should go back to 47million (or whatever the real number is) not having any coverage so they all go directly to emergency services/rooms for all health care needs. Get real.
Um, get your facts straight before you sound off. Deficit was cranked at the end of the GW Bush era, Obama’s stimulus was a drop in the bucket and $300 Billion was in tax cuts that HELPED you any ways, health care will save money, it hasn’t cost anything yet, and some of the estimations on health care being lumped in are simply baby-boom age related costs and nothing to do with the reform. Nice try, though.
Keep on keeping on, you sheep! Bah Bah Bah!
More debunking of your Scott Brown claim:
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20101103/NEWS/101109968
“Colorado Health Care Amendment 63, rejected by about 55% of voters, would have given state residents the “right of health care choice” and overturn any law that requires individuals to buy health insurance.”
This one was a _direct_ vote on health care (unlike the MA contest) and the voters in a purple state stood by the health care law. Voters in AZ and OK voted the other way, which further validates my point that there is no such thing as a national mandate due to a local election.
And then this key paragraph:
“Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, where a 2006 law has achieved near-universal coverage by requiring most individuals to have coverage and imposes fines on all but very small employers that do not offer coverage, incumbent Gov. Deval Patrick, a strong proponent of the law, easily won re-election Tuesday. He defeated former health care executive Charles Baker.”
So if the MA election was a national mandate, MA has now reversed itself and elected someone who is a strong supporter of government-mandated, universal health care coverage. The mandate has been overturned!
I’m not sure Daniel; Patrick had 49 percent and conservative opponents split most of the rest.
I think Colo was hampered by two weak Tea Party candidates and strong liberal/moderate turnout to beat Maes, Tancredo and Buck.
The Democrats do seem to have strength in liberal enclaves; NY, CA, MASS, although Frank received a mild challenge
Doug,
I’m arguing with your claim that:
“Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts sent a signal that voters did not want comprehensive health care reform. ”
It’s a mistake to take a local election with local issues and turn it into a national mandate.
If you insist on doing that, then by your same rules, the mandate was overturned yesterday.
“The result was Tuesday night, and a repudiation of government intrusion.”
I’m not sure that any such repudiation is clear. The Dems sure got whomped, and for a variety of reasons. But as someone posted upthread, it was overwhelmingly on account of the economy sucking.
I had thought earlier that the Sestak/Toomey election would be a good measuring stick, but considering the Tea Party losses elsewhere, I’m not sure there is any clear message to be taken from this election other than the following:
1) Democrats suck at campaigning and Tim Kaine should be removed as DNC chair over this travesty of a midterm
2) The Republicans should not interpret this election as an endorsement of their former policies. On this, Boehner is correct
3) The Democrats now have a bad guy to fight against. And he’s orange.
“3) the Democrats now have a bad guy to fight against. And he’s orange.”
I thought Charlie Crist lost…
Pingback: Fortune Favors the Audacious | Talking Cultural Diversity