Over the next 24 hours, there will be plenty written about the ineptitude required to lose a Senate race in Massachusetts as a Democrat. There are simply an endless number of reasons to criticize Martha Coakley today.
That her campaign chose to go dark after the primary rather than running ads; that Coakley herself did only 20 events during the general election, compared to nearly 70 for her opponent; that when they did finally run ads, the Coakley campaign spelled Massachusetts wrong.
There were the shocking quotes from Coakley, one decrying shaking hands with voters at Fenway, the other calling Curt Schilling a Yankee fan. And of course, there was the Election Day memo from Coakley's advisers, who blamed the loss (in advance of the polls
closing) on the White House and the failure of national Democrats to pay the race due attention.
As a candidate, saying Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan doesn't just make you seem like you're out of touch; it means you're out of touch. As a political strategist, believing you can save your reputation by attacking the White House before polls have closed is proof in itself that you aren't very good at messaging, and should consider another career.
There is no sympathy to be had for Coakley. The laziness of her campaign, the lack of due care paid to the legacy of the senator that preceded her, the recklessness with which she put the entire Democratic agenda at risk -- none of it can be understated, dismissed or defended. There is no spin. Not any at all. Martha Coakley should be deeply, deeply ashamed. That isn't to say that she isn't smart and capable. But on the campaign trail, she was neither. And now health care reform, after nearly a year of fights and debates and compromises and struggles, is once again in serious jeopardy.
With Brown's win comes a set of very tough choices for Democrats. Within the next ten days, Brown is likely to be seated, stripping the Democrats in the Senate of that critical 60th vote. That leaves Democrats with few options. They could quickly pass health care reform before Brown gets to Washington. But that would have required that they already reached a compromise. They haven't. At this point, even if a compromise is reached tomorrow morning, there isn't enough time to get it to the CBO for scoring, get it back, and overcome the procedural hurdles to get the bill through the Senate once more.
The next option is reconciliation, but a reconciliation bill, as has been the problem since the idea was first floated, cannot include in it the critical insurance regulations that make up the bulk of the bill's value. And reconciliation, if used, will surely drag out the health care debate for a number of additional months, leaving Democrats even more vulnerable in November.
There is however, a third option, one that if used, may actually, shockingly, incredulously result in a health care bill that is better than it would have been had Coakley not lost Ted Kennedy's seat for the Democrats.
It's not the Senate bill. It's not reconciliation. It's both. The House could agree to pass the Senate bill, but with the caveat that the substance of their negotiations be dealt with later this year, during the reconciliation process. This does a couple of things: it allows liberals in the House to vote for the Senate bill they don't like, assured that in the very near future, they will be able to improve it. It allows Democrats to take a curtain call on health care, perhaps even in time for the president's State of the Union on January 27th. And most importantly, it presents the potential for creating a health care bill that is substantially stronger than it otherwise would have been.
As of yesterday, negotiations at the White House between the House and Senate were buffered in large part by the reality that any compromise would need 60 votes in the Senate. Given the difficulty of garnering 60 votes the first time around, the possibility of reaching substantive agreement on major changes was remote at best.
But in the new context, these compromise negotiations would require only 51 votes in the Senate, allowing House progressives to get a bill much closer to the one they had originally crafted and hoped for. And while the political capital might not be there for the effort, in this context, it might even be possible to revive the public option yet again.
This is not to suggest that things are better than they seem, or that the brighter side here is particularly bright. The Coakley loss is a severe one, and the consequences of that loss will reverberate through the rest of the year, perhaps beyond. The health care bill, while still passable, has come up against its most substantial hurdle yet.
What happens from here will be a long, hard slog. But still, in the end, we may get what Ted Kennedy fought for all along. Let us hope that Democrats in Washington move forward today in his name, on his behalf, and ours.
Read more reactions from HuffPost bloggers to the Massachusetts special election
Follow Dylan Loewe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dylanloewe
HR676 is called Medicare For All.
Tuesday's election was a shock. But the aftermath was even worse: President Obama and some Democrats in Congress are now considering scaling back health care reform.1
That would be a huge mistake. We saw on Tuesday that voters don't feel like Washington is delivering on the change they voted for in 2008.2 Caving on health care reform will only make that worse.
So we're launching an emergency campaign to save real health care reform. The first step is running full-page ads in national newspapers with thousands of names of folks calling on Democrats to step up and pass strong health care reform. Will you add your name to the ad today? Just click the link below.
http://pol.moveon.org/bold/?id=18657-9193653-bzdGSQx&t=2
(and while Schilling may have been a great Sox player, his record since makes it clear he's no friend to Boston)
.
There's no question that Brown's election has significant IMPLICATIONS for Health Care/Insurance Reform; particularly since the Dems concede every time the Repubs threaten a filibuster.
However, it's hard for me to see it as a REFERENDUM on President Obama and/or health care or even the economy, because Coakley had such a significant lead for so much of the campaign. Her lead continued, even after the Senate passed their version of the bill. And, sadly, the economy hasn't changed that much in the past month when her poll ratings dropped.
If the American people were so against all of this, Obama's poll ratings should be well below 50%.
And if the voters in Massachusetts were so upset with President Obama or the other issues being discussed, wouldn't they have immediately rejected the Democratic candidate?
It looks to me like they rejected her for all the reasons cited in a previous post that reflected a pretty poorly run campaign.
Bush used his powers for a lot more clandestine and illegal activities.
draft better, more motivated candidates.
The US ranks 37th in quality at a cost of about 16% GDP. How is it that France is able to provide five times the quality at half the price?
France, or any of the other top 10 countries, have working models on the ground and up and running. No guess work there! The health care debate in the US, which has been going on in ernest for about a year and about 75 years overall, was doomed at the start by turning the discussion over to the corporate lobbyists and special interest groups. Best to scrap the current bills and just copy a winner. There is nobody in France that feels they are a "slave" or a "victim of a government takeover", that is just spin from stakeholders desperate to preserve obscene profits made off of sick people.
Somebody needs to say it: "Profit is the root of all evil." If something is good, right, and necessary to do, people shouldn't in addition have to be bribed to do it.
He's a pro-choice Republican which automatically disqualifies him from the Presidency and VP. So his only political future is in Massachusetts--either as a long server Senator or possibly a governor.
I think the only way for him to succeed is to work with the Democrats. His pro-choice stance already makes him more liberal than a Ben Nelson. I don't think he'll be willing to block regulatory reform or some of the other key issues the Democrats need passed. He may be the 41st vote on the current Health care bill, but the current bill is a bloated mess. I don't think people should confuse his opposition to the current bill with opposition to ALL HCR.
That MA would choose to fill Ted Kennedy's seat with Brown is clearly a message on the current bill(s). How many times did he repeat that he would vote against it.
How about keeping coverage requirements and subsidies and adding in some ideas that would reduce costs like allowing consumers to purchase insurance across state lines, tort reform, a phased reduction of tax benefits that applies to everyone, equivalent rules and pricing for all states?
When consummate INSIDER Jon Corzine lost in NJ, all the Party insiders were quick to blame the conditions 'unique' to NJ. The exonerated the campaign of Jon Corzine, and blamed NJ voters for being frustrated.
HOWEVER, when Creigh Deeds lost VA, and now when Martha Coakley lost MA, the "insiders" are too quick to blame the candidate--completely ignoring the role of the respective voters disenchantment OR the actual, observable failures of the Administration.
IF the DCCC were trying to pursuade me to run, they would recieve a rapid, and not too polite refusal.
The Coakley loss is more interesting. I think mass voters wanted to show that they can't be taken for granted by the Democratic party and that even a state as liberal as Mass is perfectly willing to vote for a Republican if they think that they are not being respected by the Democratic party.
There's also a lot of anger and frustration in the country right now, and Pres. Obama was right last night when he said the same forces that swept him into office, swept Brown into office.
Voters see the two-party system we have as being completely broken. the US Government is broken.
WELL, Coakley ran toward the President and lost.
Keep making excuses.
The responsibility lies in the West Wing of the White House on Pennsylvania Ave. Specifically, Obama on policy, Axlerod on messaging and Emmanuel on strategy.
She followed on the heels of blue NJ going Red, VA going Red and deep into the state government structure, at that. Polls from NJ were readily available to the DNC or to the WH, and from my own cursory reading, they told the story of MA in advance. It's the suburban Independents, whom Obama won, who are now pouring into the polling booths to make their voices heard. No, this is NOT what they bargained for, and they aren't interested in giving Pelosi Inc. another year.
All the finger-wagging at this candidate is ridiculous. She's a darn sight better prepared than Doug Hoffman was in NY23, and he came close, very close to pulling off the upset as an Independent!
I have to say I was thinking the "fix" is in. Look how quick Reid put things on hold, for what a Republican to get sworn in and seated only to vote against them? Yeah right.
TIME TO ACT LIKE IT
Start exposing cases where people denied jealth insurance chose to die instead of bankrupting their spouses and children.
Give a history lesson on the Great Depression ask them if the want to also close the FDIC along with not bailing out the banks and show them what would happen.
The people of this nation need a kick in their arrogance, ignorance, and greed.