dajafi wrote:Ezra Klein perfectly captureswhat seems to me is going on here:

[T]he reaction congressional Democrats have had to Coakley's loss has been much more shattering. It has been a betrayal.

The fundamental pact between a political party and its supporters is that the two groups believe the same thing and pledge to work on it together. And the Democratic base feels that it has held to its side of the bargain. It elected a Democratic majority and a Democratic president. It swallowed tough compromises on the issues it cared about most. It swallowed concessions to politicians it didn't like and industry groups it loathed. But it persisted. Because these things are important. That's why those voters believe in them. That's why they're Democrats.
...
If Democrats let go of health care, there is no doubt that a demoralized Democratic base will stay home in November. And that's as it should be. If the Democratic Party won't uphold its end of the bargain, there's no reason its base should pretend the deal is still on.

dajafi wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:The American people are notoriously impatient these days, not just in politics but in general. They want instant gratification and throw tantrums when they don't get what they want promptly.

I don't agree. That said, are you also referring to 2008?

In a sense. I'm speaking in general, not just with regard to politics. But 2008 was different in that Bush had plenty of time and plenty of leeway to do what he wanted. People's anger in 2008 was justified. That being said, there are people on the left who wanted a universal health care system by the end of 2009, and they are unjustifiably pissed at Obama for not delivering what they wanted right away. I want a European-style health care system badly but I know that's not going to happen overnight. Polls have shown that Brown received no more votes than McCain did in MA, but many Democrats stayed home. So angry Democrats must shoulder some of the blame for what happened last night.

Do you really believe that Brown won because angry liberals stayed home in droves due to not having "universal" health care less than one year into the Obama presidency?

If there's one state that clearly is representative of nationwide public opinion on universal health care, it's the state that already has universal health care, through a program largely indistinguishable from what the Democrats have almost-passed, which enjoys large majority support in Massachusetts and won the vote of Sen-elect Brown when he served in the state senate.

kopphanatic wrote:Bush had eight years of almost unlimited power. Obama has had a year with a weak-willed Democratic congress and relentless attacks from the opposition party and the right-wing noise machine. ... And, in an attempt to be fair ...

azrider wrote:

dajafi wrote:Ezra Klein perfectly captureswhat seems to me is going on here:

[T]he reaction congressional Democrats have had to Coakley's loss has been much more shattering. It has been a betrayal.

The fundamental pact between a political party and its supporters is that the two groups believe the same thing and pledge to work on it together. And the Democratic base feels that it has held to its side of the bargain. It elected a Democratic majority and a Democratic president. It swallowed tough compromises on the issues it cared about most. It swallowed concessions to politicians it didn't like and industry groups it loathed. But it persisted. Because these things are important. That's why those voters believe in them. That's why they're Democrats.
...
If Democrats let go of health care, there is no doubt that a demoralized Democratic base will stay home in November. And that's as it should be. If the Democratic Party won't uphold its end of the bargain, there's no reason its base should pretend the deal is still on.

is that the real reason or is it because not every democrat subscribes to a truly liberal agenda that the president and congress has been trying to push? the majority of the democratic party does not consider themselves liberal.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/conservatives-finish-2009-no-1-ideological-group.aspx

azrider wrote:is that the real reason or is it because not every democrat subscribes to a truly liberal agenda that the president and congress has been trying to push?

I kind of enjoy that hardcore right-wingers believe they have a better idea who really is and isn't ultra-liberal than actual ultra-liberals. That those people are bitterly disappointed with Obama seems to me a pretty good hint that he's in the big middle.

Mountainphan wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:The American people are notoriously impatient these days, not just in politics but in general. They want instant gratification and throw tantrums when they don't get what they want promptly.

I don't agree. That said, are you also referring to 2008?

In a sense. I'm speaking in general, not just with regard to politics. But 2008 was different in that Bush had plenty of time and plenty of leeway to do what he wanted. People's anger in 2008 was justified. That being said, there are people on the left who wanted a universal health care system by the end of 2009, and they are unjustifiably pissed at Obama for not delivering what they wanted right away. I want a European-style health care system badly but I know that's not going to happen overnight. Polls have shown that Brown received no more votes than McCain did in MA, but many Democrats stayed home. So angry Democrats must shoulder some of the blame for what happened last night.

Do you really believe that Brown won because angry liberals stayed home in droves due to not having "universal" health care less than one year into the Obama presidency?

If there's one state that clearly is representative of nationwide public opinion on universal health care, it's the state that already has universal health care, through a program largely indistinguishable from what the Democrats have almost-passed, which enjoys large majority support in Massachusetts and won the vote of Sen-elect Brown when he served in the state senate.

Exactly, so why would folks in MA of all places be pissed about not having universal health care at the federal level (and, as a result of their anger, stay away from the voting booth)?

jerseyhoya wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:Bush had eight years of almost unlimited power. Obama has had a year with a weak-willed Democratic congress and relentless attacks from the opposition party and the right-wing noise machine. ... And, in an attempt to be fair ...

Really

Mountainphan wrote:Here's an interesting take from John Judis at TNR...

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/he-doesnt-feel-your-pain

Village Voice wrote:“Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate”

dajafi wrote:

azrider wrote:is that the real reason or is it because not every democrat subscribes to a truly liberal agenda that the president and congress has been trying to push?

Something I wrote Monday:

I kind of enjoy that hardcore right-wingers believe they have a better idea who really is and isn't ultra-liberal than actual ultra-liberals. That those people are bitterly disappointed with Obama seems to me a pretty good hint that he's in the big middle.

My point in quoting the Klein thing had nothing to do with ideology, but you go ahead and take it wherever.

drsmooth wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:Here's an interesting take from John Judis at TNR...

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/he-doesnt-feel-your-pain

Interesting indeed, in that you can't go down that road without dealing with the "MA is a special case" rejoinder (in that it already has a "universal health law", whatever that really means, in place)

azrider wrote:of course it had nothing to do with ideology... that's the point i was trying to make. did you bother to click the link and see the ideologies that constitute the democratic party? is it absurd to come to the conclusion that "a promise" wasn't broken, but it may rather have been a defection due to the ideology of the policies that were trying to be passed?

drsmooth wrote:

azrider wrote:of course it had nothing to do with ideology... that's the point i was trying to make. did you bother to click the link and see the ideologies that constitute the democratic party? is it absurd to come to the conclusion that "a promise" wasn't broken, but it may rather have been a defection due to the ideology of the policies that were trying to be passed?

you may want go look up the meaning of the word ideology, b/c what you've written here suggests you have no idea what it means

traderdave wrote:Just popped in to congratulate JH and Rocco (I think). I saw Brown's speech and he seemed like a decent guy. I also saw Coakley's speech and she seemed like a decent gal. If there is any good news for Dems I guess they get to blame the GOP in November if healthcare doesn't pass.

azrider wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

azrider wrote:of course it had nothing to do with ideology... that's the point i was trying to make. did you bother to click the link and see the ideologies that constitute the democratic party? is it absurd to come to the conclusion that "a promise" wasn't broken, but it may rather have been a defection due to the ideology of the policies that were trying to be passed?

you may want go look up the meaning of the word ideology, b/c what you've written here suggests you have no idea what it means

what word or words do you wish i should use instead, fundamental beliefs?

drsmooth wrote:

azrider wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

azrider wrote:of course it had nothing to do with ideology... that's the point i was trying to make. did you bother to click the link and see the ideologies that constitute the democratic party? is it absurd to come to the conclusion that "a promise" wasn't broken, but it may rather have been a defection due to the ideology of the policies that were trying to be passed?

you may want go look up the meaning of the word ideology, b/c what you've written here suggests you have no idea what it means

what word or words do you wish i should use instead, fundamental beliefs?

use whatever terms you like, but use them in a way that clarifies your meaning.

Ideology either had something to do with MA voter behavior or it didn't. First you say it didn't ("of course it had nothing to do..."), then you suggest it didn't ("it may rather have been (sic)...").

Make up your mind, then

a) summarize the 'ideology' at issue
b) identify how these 'policies' (you probably should identify which ones) specifically embody the ideology you've outlined
c) identify who it is that subscribes to them and the specific evidence for that.

otherwise all you've got is a pile of frat-boy-or fox-news-take-your-pick-debating-style insinuation.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:95 percent? where are you getting that from? i had no idea it was that close.

I dunno. I made it up. I think they were close. Maybe it was more like 85% and that got cut to 40% yesterday. Or 91.3% slashed to 28%. My point is that yesterday dramatically cut the odds of health care reform passing, because now if Republicans really want to drag their feet, they can. Unless the Dems pass the Senate bill in the House, that is.

jerseyhoya wrote:Lost in this partisan bitchfest is Zogby making a fool of himself again

drsmooth wrote:Health care is supply driven (everywhere, not just the US).