Democrats lose Massachussets seat

[alpine_saint]

Seems the US has finally sussed out that Obama is their Tony Blair - all fart and no sh*t...

[bungle]

For a thread in the Lounge it has to be said that your opening gambit is a total waste of time and space.

 

It clearly a rather disasterous loss for the Democrat party, and it doesn't reflect well on Obama, but I think there are a couple of issues at play here.

 

1) Obama just can't force through what he wants, like our government can. He has been forced to tone down some of his reforms to try and get them through the Senate. This is true of healthcare - where Democrats in States with big drug companies running scared of reform. This has annoyed the liberal left in America, who were hopefully of massive change. By the way, if Obama gets through what he is currently proposing then it is still a big shift in US health policy. Climate change is also on the backburner, with Senate Democrats saying they couldn't get that and Healthcare through in one go.

 

2) The right wing of America has a lot of money behind it, and can make a big sensationalist impact (most of what they say isn't true, of course, but that isn't the point). They are finding it easy to scare people into believing what suits their agenda (big drug companies against government healthcare, because they won't get massive profits. Oh no!). American politics is still dominated by some very simplistic issues (race, abortion, religion, family). The right wing scare tactics work even better against a President who has promised such radical change.

 

3) So, we have left-wing Democrats frustrated and Republicans scare-mongering. Both are affecting Obama's popularity, which in turn leads to election difficulties. However, to compare Obama to Blair is ridiculous, as Blair had the parliamentary majority to do whatever he wanted, whereas Obama has to deal with many other factors.

[badgerx16]

It does seem to be a stupid system for electing an administration;

 

Elect a President, presumably on the basis of his manifesto, then follow that up by creating a legislature that is ideologically opposed to everything the President has promised to do, and will block it at every turn.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

all fart and no sh*t...

 

That fart lasted some time as no doubt this one will, compared to the stink of before I am sure most will find his odour more appealing

[OldNick]

 

They are finding it easy to scare people into believing what suits their agenda (big drug companies against government healthcare, because they won't get massive profits. Oh no!). American politics is still dominated by some very simplistic issues (race, abortion, religion, family). The right wing scare tactics work even better against a President who has promised such radical change.

 

.

Bungle the drug companies have no problem making fortunes from the NHS, and so I doubt that would be a problem in America. I myself want a free health service to those who have contributed into it.

If we never had one here and we all of a sudden were having it driven through i suggest the majority of decent hard working people would be against it providing for those who come into the country to take the benifit of it without ever putting in.

Now of course you may believe there is a right to life for all. in an ideal world that would be fine, but sadly the lifeboat can only take so many on board and so it should be for those who havecontributed to help make the NHs what it is.

[bungle]

Bungle the drug companies have no problem making fortunes from the NHS, and so I doubt that would be a problem in America. I myself want a free health service to those who have contributed into it.

If we never had one here and we all of a sudden were having it driven through i suggest the majority of decent hard working people would be against it providing for those who come into the country to take the benifit of it without ever putting in.

Now of course you may believe there is a right to life for all. in an ideal world that would be fine, but sadly the lifeboat can only take so many on board and so it should be for those who havecontributed to help make the NHs what it is.

 

I think once again you totally miss the point.

 

The private drugs industry make an absolute killing in the USA, and are unreceptive to any public participation in healthcare, as it will stop them filling their fat cat pockets with $$$.

[bungle]

It does seem to be a stupid system for electing an administration;

 

Elect a President, presumably on the basis of his manifesto, then follow that up by creating a legislature that is ideologically opposed to everything the President has promised to do, and will block it at every turn.

 

Slightly off topic, but some would say it's a much better system, as it stops one person/party running roughshod over everything. In our mighty electoral system, about 22% of the population voted Labour (and about 40% of those who voted), yet they can do whatever they want.

 

There are various arguments on either side of the whole thing. My big problem with US politics is how simple the discussion is (it is worse than here!!), and how much big business and money is involved, and how there are only 2 choices.

 

We should be looking towards European systems for reform ideas, IMO.

[hypochondriac]

Seems the US has finally sussed out that Obama is their Tony Blair - all fart and no sh*t...

Well not really, he's actually made a fair bit of progress but was never ever going to live up to the unrealistic expectations of the more brain dead amongst the American population.

[OldNick]

I think once again you totally miss the point.

 

The private drugs industry make an absolute killing in the USA, and are unreceptive to any public participation in healthcare, as it will stop them filling their fat cat pockets with $$$.

 

No Im not missing the point. i understand that the drug companies make a fortune out of both situations.

The drug companies were not voting in Masschusetts, it was th people who can see illigal aliens taking for nothing

[bungle]

No Im not missing the point. i understand that the drug companies make a fortune out of both situations.

The drug companies were not voting in Masschusetts, it was th people who can see illigal aliens taking for nothing

 

Hahahaha. You actually don't have a clue.

[bungle]

Well not really, he's actually made a fair bit of progress but was never ever going to live up to the unrealistic expectations of the more brain dead amongst the American population.

 

+1.

 

Although I tried in more detail. I thought this might provoke interesting debate, but as I guessed it was worthless.

[hypochondriac]

+1.

 

Although I tried in more detail. I thought this might provoke interesting debate, but as I guessed it was worthless.

 

It was obvious that no matter what Obama did it would end up like this. People raised expectations so much, he was viewed like the saviour, an image which was only ever going to get tarnished once people realised that he wasn't superhuman and that he can only do so much. I think some Americans think it's just like the movies. Many Americans don't deserve a president like Obama. I wish he was the British Prime Minister...

[OldNick]

Hahahaha. You actually don't have a clue.

of course you are an expert.

I have many clients in Mass who were normally with Democratic leanings.They are up in arms about the thought of paying for other peoples health care.

[bungle]

of course you are an expert.

I have many clients in Mass who were normally with Democratic leanings.They are up in arms about the thought of paying for other peoples health care.

 

FYI:

 

Big company has lots of money. And is making lots of money.

Possible government decision will impact on their profits

 

A: They say they will give donation to government party, if they drop policy B: They give huge donation to opposing party to campaign against legislation using half-truths and scaremongering.

 

A: Policy gets dropped/watered down. B: Vicious scaremongering campaign ensues (in your case, you are easily fooled by blaming immigrants for everything.

 

B: Either opposing party is able to stop the policy by scaring governing party into thinking of future electoral doom or wins an election in time to stop policy for no other reason than they got lots of money.

 

This is the guide to how US politics works.

[The9]

It does seem to be a stupid system for electing an administration;

 

Elect a President, presumably on the basis of his manifesto, then follow that up by creating a legislature that is ideologically opposed to everything the President has promised to do, and will block it at every turn.

 

Checks and balances, my friend. And anyway, there's no link between the election of president and that of the two institutions of Congress (well, other than the dates of election coinciding for about 1/3 of them, and being on the same ballot paper, but then that "ticket" goes down to the ability to vote for Sanitation Commissioner so hardly a big deal).

 

Damn sight more sensible than having "whoever the leading party decides they want from their ranks" as Prime Minister and the risible and unelected Blair - Brown handover.

 

As for Massachussets giving a cack about immigrants ? Well, no, geography should tell you that one. Unless it's those damn Canadians ?

Edited 20 January, 2010 by The9

[OldNick]

FYI:

 

Big company has lots of money. And is making lots of money.

Possible government decision will impact on their profits

 

A: They say they will give donation to government party, if they drop policy B: They give huge donation to opposing party to campaign against legislation using half-truths and scaremongering.

 

A: Policy gets dropped/watered down. B: Vicious scaremongering campaign ensues (in your case, you are easily fooled by blaming immigrants for everything.

 

B: Either opposing party is able to stop the policy by scaring governing party into thinking of future electoral doom or wins an election in time to stop policy for no other reason than they got lots of money.

 

This is the guide to how US politics works.

Those things are at work in every western economy. Dont tell me that Blair's sudden change of heart regarding Formula 1 didn't have anything to do with a donation that suddenly came forward.

The state of Mass has been Democrat for generations. It is like a safe North East seat going to the Tories, however much they throw money at trying to convince the voters they would not change unless something dramatic changed their minds.

It is not just about immigrants but also about the fact that the man in the street resents paying for others who have never paid in.

As I put earlier, if we never had experienced the workings of a health service we would rally against paying a lot more of our earnings to seemingly gain less and at the same time contribute to what we may feel rightly or wrongly) unworthy benefactors.

[BigShadow]

As someone who lives here in Massachusetts, I think you are all playing the healthcare thing wrong as far as it impacted this result - it was a factor, but it was not Americans saying they do not want healthcare reform. This should have been a slam dunk for the democrats - they had a 27 point lead in the polls just before Christmas.

 

IMO, they lost the battle because:-

 

1) Healthcare - it is not that the Americans here in Massachusetts are too stupid to see the benefits of Obama's plan. The fact is that in the US - healthcare entitlement along with many other things varies from State to State. In Mass. we already have in place many of the elements of the Obama plan and as such, we stood to benefit least from Obama's proposed plan. The Republicans capitalised on this by highlighting that the Obama plan would bring very little in the way of new benefits to Mass. (and in fact would remove some freedom of choice), BUT importantly, it would increase the tax burden on the state. One key part of the campaign stated - why should Massachusetts pay more tax just so Wisconsin can get the benefits we already have.

 

2) Govt. Spending - Americans are deeply concerned at the record levels of debt and spending being incurred by the Obama administration. They fear the tax increases that will have to come to pay for this, and the impact on their retirement, children etc.

 

3) Personality - Scott Brown just came across as a nice guy - your average joe driving his battered old pick-up truck. People felt in touch with him whereas Martha Coakley just didn't seem to make that connection. Quite the opposite in fact, as she made a number of gaffs that portrayed her to be out of touch with the people.

 

4) Campaign Strategy - Despite the denials, I think the Democrats were complacent. They saw the lead they had in the polls three weeks ago and thought they didn't need to bother. Scott Browns campaign was positive and intensive. When the democrats finally realised they had a problem, they went negative and started attacking Scott Browns character. It was too late and the man was already too well liked on a personal level for that tactic to work.

 

And as for immigration - well if that was an important factor in this race, then I missed it.

[Saint Keith]

Well not really, he's actually made a fair bit of progress but was never ever going to live up to the unrealistic expectations of the more brain dead amongst the American population.

 

i.e. about 99% of them

[LVSaint]

As someone who lives here in Massachusetts, I think you are all playing the healthcare thing wrong as far as it impacted this result - it was a factor, but it was not Americans saying they do not want healthcare reform. This should have been a slam dunk for the democrats - they had a 27 point lead in the polls just before Christmas.

 

IMO, they lost the battle because:-

 

1) Healthcare - it is not that the Americans here in Massachusetts are too stupid to see the benefits of Obama's plan. The fact is that in the US - healthcare entitlement along with many other things varies from State to State. In Mass. we already have in place many of the elements of the Obama plan and as such, we stood to benefit least from Obama's proposed plan. The Republicans capitalised on this by highlighting that the Obama plan would bring very little in the way of new benefits to Mass. (and in fact would remove some freedom of choice), BUT importantly, it would increase the tax burden on the state. One key part of the campaign stated - why should Massachusetts pay more tax just so Wisconsin can get the benefits we already have.

 

This is a shame that the so called 'Independents' felt that unified healthcare reform would mean more taxation on top of the semi-socialised healthcare they get in the state already. Surely, if everyone across the country is paying extra for healthcare, then MA would be paying the same? I don't see the logic.

 

3) Personality - Scott Brown just came across as a nice guy - your average joe driving his battered old pick-up truck. People felt in touch with him whereas Martha Coakley just didn't seem to make that connection. Quite the opposite in fact, as she made a number of gaffs that portrayed her to be out of touch with the people.

 

4) Campaign Strategy - Despite the denials, I think the Democrats were complacent. They saw the lead they had in the polls three weeks ago and thought they didn't need to bother. Scott Browns campaign was positive and intensive. When the democrats finally realised they had a problem, they went negative and started attacking Scott Browns character. It was too late and the man was already too well liked on a personal level for that tactic to work.\

 

Agree. **** poor candidate and lacklustre campaign strategy. (John Kerry comes from Boston too...)

[SuperMikey]

It's so frustrating that you can see that Obama is just trying to give everybody equal rights when it comes to healthcare, but people are too short sighted to see that their few extra dollars in tax a month will go to help people who otherwise couldn't get medical attention. I'm reminded of the story of a terminally ill boy in one of the southern states in the USA whose family couldn't afford healthcare, so prayed for him while he died, when a hospital trip could have potentially saved his life and decreased the severity of his condition.

 

What is the point in electing a President who is promising change if the people who voted for him (or rather the representatives that they elect to vote on these issues) aren't willing to change the stale policies that are in place at the moment. Madness.