Plan B

I'll write about Massachusetts tomorrow. Tonight I see Josh Marshall is melting down because of this:

Two high-profile progressives--Reps. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)--said the only way they could sign on to the Senate bill is if it was accompanied immediately, or even preceded by, a separate bill, making a number of major preemptive changes to what they regard as an inferior package.

"It would have to be so quick that they happen at the same time," Weiner said. [...] We've gotta recognize we have an entirely different scenario tomorrow." "You should do the other stuff first and then pass the Senate bill," Nadler told me. "I don't see how I could vote for the Senate bill," otherwise.

I applaud Weiner and Nadler. This is smart bargaining AND smart politics. Plan B CAN NOT be just pass the Senate bill. Massachusetts should teach us that. I'll explain why tomorrow.

Speaking for me only

< Upset Central: Brown Beats Coakley for Mass. Senate Seat | Why Conservatives Shouldn't Get the Credit For Coakley's Defeat >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Great point (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:54:26 PM EST
    Renewed relevance of the progressive block.

    Watching Marshall freak-out (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by kidneystones on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:01:01 PM EST
    and then scream at everyone to just 'CALM the FRAK DOWN and SHUT-UP, why don't you!' had been one of the best parts of the evening. Lovin' it.

    I agree, this is a great time to stick to the WH, the insurance companies and big pharma. Kill the existing bill, make jobs the priority: as in actually hiring some people, and turn HCR over to Feingold and company for prepare something progressive and practical.

    See? Alliteration.

    That's not my Plan B (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:02:44 PM EST
    Nor is it what Weiner and Nadler said.

    Looking forward to your post. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kidneystones on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:15:34 PM EST
    I don't expect to agree with all of it.

    I personally think HCR at the national level is dead. I'd love to see Dems with some spine come up with a better alternative. Or kill the bill.

    Un-employment doesn't drop to 8% or lower by August, Dems can say adios to 2010 and 2012.

    Here's a question. Would a GOP economic team look any different from the current one? That, IMHO, is the problem.


    You've got plan B just right (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by NealB on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:23:41 PM EST
    Democratic leadership should be way ahead of you on this to set the wheels in motion tomorrow morning.

    Yet again, another great opportunity for the Democratic supermajority in Congress. I expect them to blow my mind. Tomorrow. Crack of dawn.


    I'm all ears (none / 0) (#7)
    by Klio on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:05:36 PM EST
    and will tune in tomorrow, then.

    You're going to suggest (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:06:43 PM EST
    expanding Medicare and the other options you have approved as being palliative, but not reform.

    I'm am going to suggest (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:07:46 PM EST
    for bargaining for the best deal you can get and, if you think it is not good enough, then walk away from the table.

    ah, Dems have guts. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by observed on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:21:22 PM EST
    I hope so.
    Maybe one day you can explain why Republicans take lots of risks, and principled stands---even commit major crimes to advance their agenda---while Democrats can't even stiffarm Olympia Snowe?

    I'm not saying they WILL do it (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:25:39 PM EST
    I'm saying they SHOULD do it.

    The only time Dems did what I suggested was when Rahmbo was overruled in 2006 and Dem ran against the Iraq War.


    Stick a fork in it, (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:15:31 PM EST
    This awful HCR bill is done.  Over.  Fini.  

    Jim Webb has already said there will be not be another vote in the Senate until Brown is seated.  The House doesn't have the votes to pass the current Senate bill.  

    Will they start over or just give up?  I have no idea.  If forced to guess, I'd say they'll pass something or other but it will be next to nothing.  

    What a shame, an entire year wasted while unemployment grows.  It's the economy, STUPID.  

    Erza Klein and Rachel Maddow (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:25:21 PM EST
    Are on television now saying that is election means that democrats MUST pass a health care bill this year or they're all dead meat.  Oh really?  Gee, I thought this loss in MA said something else entirely.......................silly me.  

    MA voters interviewed on NPR (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:31:35 PM EST
    before the polls closed:  we don't want federal government growing bigger, intervening more in our lives, costing us more money.

    They never interview (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:33:47 PM EST
    the people who decided not to go vote.

    Do you expect to find out the demographics (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:40:03 PM EST
    re who didn't vote?

    Bingo. (none / 0) (#32)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:40:59 PM EST
    Though turnout was big, I'll bet there are plenty who did not show up at the polls.

    If only Dems were interested in learning something from them.


    How would reporters find the voters (none / 0) (#39)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:56:51 PM EST
    Who are at home and not voting?  

    Voter Interviews (none / 0) (#46)
    by Dave B on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:06:56 PM EST
    They never seem to find a Democrat to interview either.  I read that over 20% of Democrats voted for Brown.  Wouldn't you think they would be searching out those folks to hear what they have to say about it?

    Of course not, darn Liberal Media!


    Well, Rachel was talking with (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:32:35 AM EST
    Howard Dean just as the polls were closing and early results were starting. He said some pretty lame things ... she must have believed him.

    They really, really don't want to admit what's happening ... so much youtube, so little time.


    The spin is (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by robotalk on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:34:34 PM EST
    the have to pass the health bill in 30 days to staunch the bleeding from this loss.

    That means the Senate Bill unchanged. Watch and see.

    And that is death for the dems in 2012.

    Oh, brother... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:58:10 PM EST
    the Dems are still thinking that all they've suffered is a bloody nose, when, in fact, they are bleeding out internally.

    I don't know how much longer I can be associated with the kind of stupidity that thinks passing the Senate bill is the answer, when it may well have been the reason Coakley lost tonight; call me whatever you want, but I have a very low tolerance for stupid. [which may be obvious from some of my comments...]


    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:11:10 AM EST
    It wasn't just one issue that sunk Coakley; I don't think it was even about Coakley. The voters don't get to write an essay explaining their vote; they only have two choices: "D" or "R."  It's like when a prosecutor, or defense attorney, forces a witness to answer a question: Yes or No? Neither one may express what the witness feels but it's the only 2 choices they have.

    The Mass. Voters sent a message the only way they could. And the message was a complete repudiation of Obama and the Democratic leadership, and how they squandered the good will of the voters of 2006 and 2009.

    Obama can't come back from this because the problem isn't mechanical that can be fixed with a tweak here and a twist there. The vote was an expression of the complete and total betrayal that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have shoved down our throats.


    Not going to happen (none / 0) (#38)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:53:46 PM EST
    To many scared Congressmen who have to run in 10 months for them to agree to vote for the Senate bill.  

    I agree, if the actually did that it would be the death knell for the party in this  year and in 2012.  


    I'm not expecting much from my new Rep (none / 0) (#44)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:06:05 PM EST
    (he's long time, I'm moving to his district) The district went Hillary, but he was a Super and went Obama. {Sigh} My Rep here is very safe, but feisty, so hopefully she'll join in with Wiener's voice.

    Some Dem Senators have been aware (none / 0) (#57)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:36:38 AM EST
    this year's election could have them fighting for their jobs because of the administration, too. The plea's for money have been quite revealing.

    I have shot off a short and sweet email to mine already this evening to make sure she understands how I view the MA voter results and that I will be watching the campaigns like any good Indy... listening carefully to all candidates.


    Mine knew in Autumn there'd be one less (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ellie on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:08:09 AM EST
    ... supporter getting their backs. The partei doesn't have the instinct or smarts to swiftly course-correct (unlike the Grand Old Lizard Brain, which just sets its sights and plows ahead).

    And oh yeah, any sign of Rahmbo tonight, ridiculing and baiting the base? Funny, that.


    Plan B to include transparency (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:58:01 PM EST
    for more than 72 hours?  And about the campaign promise that it all would be on the toob, that went down the toobs today.  In response:

    The American Society of News Editors (www.asne.org) today protested the lack of transparency on the health reform negotiations. Here's an excerpt from their protest:

        We agree with other journalism groups and open government advocates who have decried the amount of debate and negotiation over the America's Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that has occurred away from public view....
        "It is now clear that there is an inexcusable level of secrecy surrounding this landmark legislation, especially as the current proceedings are likely to produce the final version presented to all members of Congress. To so profoundly affect the American public through closed-door proceedings is an affront to one of the core values of Democracy."
        ASNE reminds congressional leadership that public trust in the final result -- no matter what that result is -- will be maximized by openness.

    The media are turning. . . .

    Wow, mixed emotions. (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Teresa on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:10:45 PM EST
    I hate the Senate bill almost as much as no bill at all. I do wonder though, is there anyone here who has been rejected for insurance at any price (not that I could pay it) due to a pre-existing condition?

    I have a limited liability policy through the state of TN. It's fine for normal doctor visits & does allow me to see a neurologist but only six specialist visits of any kind per year. But if I follow my family history of heart trouble at a not so old age, I'm in a world of hurt. Where do you go when you have a little bit of insurance but only enough to pay for the simplest of surgeries?

    I'd like to see them do away with pre-existing conditions even if it means throwing my dreams of health care reform down the tubes for now. Then, I'd have to figure out a way to pay the outrageous premiums unless they were required to accept me and also charge me at the normal rate for someone my age.

    It really hurts to see us throw away this chance. I don't mean the election tonight but the chance we had to truly reform health care. We live in such a backwards country to consider ourselves to be the greatest of all. I'm not a bit proud to live where health care needs are not taken care of.

    I have, but I was lucky (none / 0) (#66)
    by suzieg on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:27:54 AM EST
    that my state (Texas) offered insurance through a risk pool which is excellent insurance coverage at a high price - close to $17,000 yearly. I battled cancer three months after enrolling and had nothing refused or questionned. I was cut off unexpectedly during my chemo treatment when an illegal stole my identity and I was accused of fraud but thankfully got it resolved quickly.

    Josh said something earlier (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:00:15 PM EST
    I agree with:

       No question this was a terribly run campaign. Not just that, an irresponsibly run campaign. Yes, it's the national climate. It's a lot of stuff that's going on today. But I don't have much question that another Democratic nominee would have come out with a much better result. I really believe that.

    Coakley was the wrong candidate.

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:01:57 PM EST
    MA Dem primary voters did not agree with you and Josh.

    Not even sure what the point of Josh's comment even is.

    TO me that is as meaningful as wondering how Hillary would have done as President.

    See didn't win. Neither did Capuano.


    Read Jane (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:15:58 PM EST
    who defends Coakley, but agrees she lost because of changing her position on the abortion part of the health care bill.

    Coakley's drop in the polls started when  they demanded she bow down and kiss the feet of President Ben Nelson over abortion:

    Coakley's lead dropped significantly after the Senate passed health care reform shortly before Christmas and after the Christmas Eve "bombing" incident. Polling showed significant concerns with the actions of Senator Nelson to hold out for a better deal. Senator Nelson's actions specifically hurt Coakley who was forced to backtrack on her opposition to the abortion restriction amendment.

    I remember that as the turning point as well, see my post here, Martha Coakley's Bait and Switch on Abortion.  That was post-primary and unable to recover from.


    Capuano supported the bill (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:18:41 PM EST
    in the primaries. And lost.

    Funny how people forgot that.


    So he didn't have to flip-flop? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:33:25 PM EST
    He would not have had to (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:34:38 PM EST

    Oh, my goodness (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:01:26 PM EST
    With respect, Jeralyn, Jane is flat-out wrong about this.  This is heavily Catholic Massachusetts, there's wide ambivalence about abortion and she'd probably gain as many votes as she lost for that one sliver of an issue, to the extent that it registered at all with the vast, vast majority of voters.

    I agree entirely that the flip-flop on the hc bill is what started the stampede to Brown, but it's all the other stuff in the bill and the ugly way it's been done that had the main impact.


    I agree except (3.00 / 3) (#33)
    by mjames on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:42:10 PM EST
    It was President Obama. Not Nelson. Obama picked Nelson for the dirty work. Obama withheld money from Coakley until she did what Obama wanted. He also wanted to punish her for backing Clinton. That's how he treats Clinton supporters. And Obama is not pro-choice as far as I can see. He identifies with Nelson and is super fine with the Senate bill. It is Obama who hath wrought this mess. I'm pleased that the MA voters said no. This was not a referendum on Nelson; it was a referendum on Obama's HCR.

    If you think Obama (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:02:49 PM EST
    wanted to sabotage Coakley once she was the nominee, please let kdog know what you're smoking.  It must be some very fine stuff.

    He wanted to punish her (2.00 / 3) (#51)
    by mjames on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:22:07 PM EST
    But he thought she would still win. Yes, I think he's that petty and stupid. I don't think he realized MA voters might not go along with what he wanted.

    That's just silly (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:25:58 PM EST
    If there's one thing we know for sure and certain about Obama it's that he's not a risk taker.

    I don't know who MJames is (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:39:19 AM EST
    but he has been filling our comment threads with the same theme tonight, I don't credit it at all. And s/he's close to being declared a chatterer per the comment rules.

    I don't think kdog is going to be interested (none / 0) (#47)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:08:02 PM EST
    Wrong substance.

    I also think her going to (none / 0) (#67)
    by suzieg on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:32:00 AM EST
    Washington for a fundraiser with health insurance and pharma industry lobbyists a week before the elections didn't help her cause!

    If the national climate for Democrats was (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:03:30 PM EST
    not in terrible shape, a dead man could have won that seat. Coakley ran a bad campaign, but the national party dragger her down.

    Obama can never fail. He can only be failed. (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by lambert on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:12:20 PM EST
    To me, it looks like Coakley was doing just fine until the national Dems:

    1. Made reverse her pro-woman stance on abortion in the Dem's health insurance reform bills, p.o.-ing the base, and then

    2. Made the election into a referendum on a bill that not only makes failure to buy junk insurance a federal crime, but is worse than the system MA already has.

    Maybe we will eventually know whether (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:14:30 PM EST
    Coakley was pushed to publicly state her support for the reform legislation, or she did it on her own to curry favor with and get some attention from the powers-that-be; either way, it was a mistake.

    I know you were opposed to Coakley for law-related reasons, but I believe she lost for Obama/health care-related reasons.

    If she's the canary in the coal mine, the party - and Obama - are in serious trouble.  As well they should be, but the question now will be whether the party moves closer to the Lieberman model or rediscovers its liberal - yes, liberal (I HATE the term "progressive") roots; I'm guessing they will, like the small-brained deer they resemble, jump into oncoming traffic instead of whatever smart move will save their lives.


    And of course the "teabaggers" (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by observed on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:18:32 PM EST
    are going to make hay of this Boston Tea Party

    Rasmussen (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kidneystones on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:37:05 PM EST
    isn't popular among all Dems, but reports that 29% of voters have a very unfavorable view of the Tea Party.

    Perhaps there's an even split among independents re: the tea-party. My guess is that those really hostile to the tea-party are hardcore Dems, perhaps the KO audience.

    Calling Brown a 'far-right tea-bagger' didn't win the election for Dems. Being called a 'racist' for seeing value in Obama's opponents opened my eyes (really) to the negative consequences of this kind of rhetoric.

    I'll never forget, I'll never forgive, and I'll never trust the word of the folks who leveled those smears. I hope Dems start showing voters a little respect from now on cause no matter how big a deal losing to a Republican might look tonight, the ripple effect is going to magnify the impact across the country starting now.

    The 'Brown supports violence against women' line seems a sure way to guarantee defeat. I hope Dems find a plan that will put people back to work soon and become a party of solutions rather than slurs.

    Smears don't cut it when you're charged with solving problems.


    I think she lost for a lot of different reasons (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:46:50 AM EST
    "Say anything to get elected" is still stinging many of those who switched from D to I in 2008. Seems her public flip flop may have looked like another candidate who wasn't telling people the truth of what they could expect once in office.

    Or maybe people just didn't understand (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:04:57 AM EST
    What Coakley Really Meant or what Coakley Really Promised?  Since Obama was campaigning for her, she should've asked him with how he gets away with saying things which leads people to not really understand What Obama Really Meant and What Obama Really Promised and still win elections.

    My canary in the Senate (none / 0) (#28)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:36:31 PM EST
    who is up for re-election has really been going after the big bucks for the first time in his career.  And now I see why -- for one thing, he vowed to stay true to the public option:


    And just yesterday, yet another rich Repub with really deep pockets declared he is in the race.

    Oops, just heard Feingold's name come up from some pundit on the teevee talking about surprises, too.  


    I agree that (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:46:15 AM EST
    the reasons I opposed her had nothing to do with her loss. While good fortune from my point of view, I'm sure you could count on two hands the number of people who either considered the points I made or had the same concerns. I do think her switch on health care/abortion made many distrustful of her. And she eschewed interaction with voters until the very end, thinking it wasn't necessary because of her name recognition.

    When you consider that Dems outnumbered Repubs 3 to 1 but Independents outnumber both, I think understanding how and why Brown was able to mobilize the Independents to vote for him, is something worthy of examination.


    A diarist (none / 0) (#27)
    by standingup on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:35:43 PM EST
    at Dkos has a diary suggesting political infighting in the MA Democratic party was as much to blame as anything.  

    My Mom is a Democratic machine operative in Boston - here's her explanation


    pathetic excuse making by the (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by observed on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:37:04 PM EST

    And no facts included in it either (none / 0) (#34)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:46:09 PM EST
    All hearsay and presumption.

    Well, maybe the Menino part was factual (none / 0) (#36)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:47:21 PM EST
    but I need more background on the whys and wherefores and therefores.

    But ... but ... it's written by the diarist's MOM (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ellie on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:14:38 AM EST
    By the tortured end I was glad the source wasn't the diarist's Sainted Mom.

    All politics is local, after all (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:46:21 PM EST
    and it certainly makes sense that the state party would be squabbling after the loss of a leader for 47 years.  Plus, it sounds like my state and a lot of states to have these big city-burbs-rural wars.

    Very telling stats in one comment there about turnout in the big city of Boston, which would suggest that the machine didn't get out the vote:

    Turnout - Cities vs. Suburbs

    Turnout in Boston was only 43%, Springfield 32%, Worcester 42%, New Bedford 35%, Fall River 38%, Lynn 38%, Lawrence 28%, Brockton 41%.  Those are where all the Dem votes are; they didn't show up.  Turnout was in the 50s and 60s in most of the burbs.

    Dismal turnout in Boston alone (none / 0) (#37)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:48:34 PM EST
    is the predictor.

    Ted Kennedy was not (none / 0) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:06:23 PM EST
    the leader of the in-state Massachusetts Democrats.  Senators rarely, if ever, play that role.  They run on parallel tracks with the state apparatus.

    Ah. Then the Boston mayor (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:11:48 PM EST
    who, says the link, did not work for her?

    Again, it makes sense to me that there would be squabbling after such a change, a Senate seat open for the first time in many people's lifetimes.  I've seen it here after Senate seats (and historically, I'm recalling how Joe McCarthy won the seat that "belonged" to the LaFollettes), after the longest-term governor ever, etc.


    Mass. Dems. (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:24:48 PM EST
    are always, always in a state of squabbling with each other.  I didn't read the diary in question, but I've been pretty deeply involved years ago and there was intense and ugly squabbling then.  It's the nature of the beast.  I wouldn't take it too seriously.

    Lawrence O'Donnell said the same thing re (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 07:30:32 AM EST
    the Boston Mayor last night on teevee. He was a Cup. supporter and according to LOD didn't get out the vote in Boston for C

    Turnout (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 08:18:54 AM EST
    Yep. Disastrous turnout in Boston (none / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 09:56:30 AM EST
    and in a couple of college towns. . . .

    worse turnout (none / 0) (#73)
    by CST on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:01:30 AM EST
    in working class cities.  Much worse.

    Turnout was actually fairly high in some college towns.


    that's what happens (none / 0) (#74)
    by CST on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:02:27 AM EST
    when you p*ss off the unions

    Yes, saw Fall River stats, too (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:49:11 AM EST
    and I think it's still a working-class town.  It was one of the first.  The working class, the factories, started in sizeable numbers first in Massachusetts, after all.

    As for college towns, yes, I noted low turnout in a couple.  Certainly not all.  It seems mixed -- but then, Massachusetts also being the home of the first college towns (Boston, Holyoke, etc.), they have morphed there in ways that are not necessarily so elsewhere.  


    A nice breakdown (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:02:00 AM EST
    Paul does a wonderful job here,as usual.

    While the media is concentrating on the massive change in the percentage of Democratic vs Republican votes in the 2010 Massachusetts special election, the real significance lies in the fact that Republican voters turned out, and Democrats stayed home.

    Brown managed to attract just slightly more votes that McCain got in the 2008 election (105.8% of McCain's vote or 63,823* more votes.) But Coakley was only able to attract 56.0% of the votes Obama received in 2008 -- thats 832,401 fewer votes. Or to put it another way, 3% of the 2008 Democratic electorate switched to the GOP from the Dems -- but 44% of the 2008 Democratic electorate stayed home rather than vote for the Democrat again.

    Lawrence O'Donnell just agreed (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:34:53 PM EST
    with a lot of this.  Interesting.

    MA Senate race (none / 0) (#15)
    by addleline on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:18:09 PM EST
    Would that a senator, congressperson, or (heaven forbid) even the president get this message!!! No, it's not due to worries of socialized medicine. IT HAPPENED BECAUSE THIS HEALTH CARE BILL IS WORSE THAN NOTHING. IT IS A BOON TO THE HEALTH INSURANCE  PHARMCEUTICAL INDUSTRIES! PERIOD!
    People are ANGRY that they've been sold out. I have voted for the democrats all my life.....ALL my life. What the DC folks don't get is that we are paying attention. We know that this requires everyone to buy health insurance at around 37% of their income. And only the poorest of the poor will be helped to do so at all. If you cannot [do not] buy health insurance, you will be fined. The majority of the people who will be required to buy it will be young and healthy. BUT, this does not go into effect until 2013. Wow, what a coincidence, huh? 2013, right after the presidential election. duh. We are tired of being treated as though we are complete idiots.

    37 percent of your income? (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:09:45 PM EST
    And FYI, I am not the "poorest of the poor," yet I get quite a substantial subsidy, about 2/3 of the projected cost, for the mandated health insurance.

    I don't like this bill, either, but do let's try to stick to something approaching reality.


    Problem is... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by NealB on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:25:07 AM EST
    ...the bill(s) is (are) so massive, it's (they're) impenetrable for anyone not qualified to comprehend it (them). How do we know what passes won't take a huge portion of our limited income or whether subsidies will really make it more affordable?

    Is it going to be 10% of our income, or 17% including deductibles and fees? Mightn't it end up close to 37% for some, if they actually need to use it some years, if they hit limits crptically coded in the bill? Which bill are we getting? Which set of hundreds (thousands?) of pages?

    Half of what health care reform means to a lot of us is a system we can understand. This bill not only fails to solve that problem, it makes it worse. We don't know what the reality of it is.


    Hi (none / 0) (#63)
    by The Last Whimzy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:53:01 AM EST
    I'm convinced Clinton was responsible for every loss by a Dem in the 90s but Obama is not responsible for any losses by Dems at all.

    that is who i am and i am a well respected blogger that everyone listens to.  

    Mass. State Democrats changing how Senators (none / 0) (#75)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:29:01 AM EST
    are replaced in 2004, then again in 2008, to serve Democratic Party interests was not forgotten by voters.

    While the system in place today, Governor appoints and then calls for special election, is ironically a good system, how Mass got there and why was always an attempt to manipulate the system at the expense of voters.

    Voters took revenge.