Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

First thoughts on Scott Brown's special election victory

State Sen. Scott Brown's (R) stunning political upset over state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) in Massachusetts tonight ranks as one of the biggest shockers in modern political history and is likely to set off a multitude of repercussions both large and small.

Our first thoughts on what Brown's victory means are below. Obviously, since the race has just ended, we reserve the right to revise and extend these remarks. If you have thoughts of your own, feel free to offer them in the comments section below.

* With the Coakley loss now in the rear view mirror, the attention of the political world will now quickly turn to the question of whether or not congressional Democrats -- particularly those in swing areas -- will start jumping ship. Democratic leaders in the House huddled moments after the result was official to try and settle on a strategy for moving forward politically. We spoke to a handful of party strategists last night in search of a list of who to keep an eye on. Among the names: Reps. Ike Skelton (Mo.), John Murtha (Pa.), Alan Mollohan (W.Va.), John Dingell (Mich.), John Spratt (S.C.), and Leonard Boswell (Iowa) -- among others. Yes, we know some of these Members have said recently that they plan to run for re-election. We also know that an event like a Republican victory in Massachusetts can change a lot of minds in a hurry. On the Senate side, the two names that come up as potential retirements in the wake of the Coakley mess are Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Harry Reid (Nev.). A Reid ally insists retirement is simply not an option for the Majority Leader although the Nevada Democrat was already struggling to gain traction in polls. (Reid campaign manager Brandon Hall sent out an e-mail to supporters tonight insisting that "while this is truly unfortunate, it only reinforces why Senator Harry Reid is running for re-election and why it's so important that he wins next November.") How big an impact will Massachusetts have in determining the landscape for the midterms? Several Democratic operatives acknowledged privately over the past few days that a Coakley defeat could put control of the House in play if enough targeted members head for the hills. It remains to be seen whether those doomsday predictions come to pass but it's now clear that Democrats must work day in and day out to avoid broad losses outside of the historic norms for a first term, midterm election.

* For all of the coverage of the Democratic blame game in Massachusetts, the truth of the matter is that there is plenty of blame to go around. Should Coakley have gone on television far earlier in order to exploit her financial advantage over Brown and define the terms of the general election in her favor? Absolutely. Should the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have checked in more frequently in December to ensure that Coakley wasn't taking the race for granted -- always a dangerous thing in an environment like this? You bet. Should the White House -- knowing that Coakley represented the 60th vote for health care -- have double and triple-checked the intelligence they were getting from the campaign and the DSCC to make sure that this was going to be in the "win" column? Yes. In short: a loss in a state that President Obama won by 26 points (and 800,000 votes) in 2008 is the result of a number of failures -- from the candidate to the campaign to the party committees to the White House. Check back in this space tomorrow for a full winners and losers list from today's vote.

* Republicans will look to capitalize on Brown's victory in a number of ways but the two that matter most are fundraising and recruiting. The National Republican Senatorial Committee will host "political briefings" for donors on Thursday and Friday in an attempt to wring more cash out of tonight's Massachusetts win. Expect Republicans to revisit recruitment efforts against the likes of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) -- all of whom have either faced real races in the past or sit in states that are closely divided along partisan lines. One House Republican strategist put their recruitment strategy bluntly: "No Democrat is safe. Period."

* Obama's last-minute visit to Massachusetts suggests that while he remains personally popular -- over 60 percent in the Suffolk University poll -- he was not, ultimately persuasive to undecided voters in this race. Internal polling done for both parties suggested that the Obama visit had helped drive excitement among the most committed Democrats but his presence in the state did almost nothing to change the horse race numbers. That marks a major change from the 2008 campaign when Obama's great electoral gift was not only his ability to energize the party's base but also to connect with independent voters. That touch appears to have worn off -- a judgment based not just on the Massachusetts race but also losses in Virginia and New Jersey governors races.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 19, 2010; 10:42 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race
Next: Democratic blame game in full force in Massachusetts Senate special election


Our boycott of Boston is officially over! We are planning our first trip for May : )

Funny, they never noticed your boycott and they certainly won't notice your presence, either. They will, however, wake up one day and realize that the faux populist they just let into their beds is really a right wing robot who won't look quite so pretty in the harsh light of day. Better visit quick, before the pall of bitterness and despair sets in.

Posted by: Koko3 | January 20, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

As an Independent, I may have voted for Brown myself. I "hope" that Dems and Independents stop, look and listen to the political traffic. If they read the signs correctly, there may be fewer collisions in the fall. I want Obama to take the wheel!

Posted by: tarynh | January 20, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama needs to better define his policy goals. He has let his opponents define him. That is always a prescription for diaster. Go on the offensive. The polls show that Americans believe in the goals. There is a disconnect between what the health plan does and the legislation that makes it happen.

Posted by: texlib | January 20, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Again, once you have that insurance policy in place, you can take advantage of HSA and other tax savings (itemized deductions, for instance). If all of that is still more expensive than moving, there you go.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 2:08 PM
You are impossible. You don't know what you are talking about. The guaranteed issue policy does not qualify you for HSA. Look it up. You make me want to weep.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 20, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Again, once you have that insurance policy in place, you can take advantage of HSA and other tax savings (itemized deductions, for instance). If all of that is still more expensive than moving, there you go.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: baseball3 | January 20, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Jake D,

You may think healthcare is like a free Corvette, but I don't.

Guaranteed issue insurance here is $1300/month, which is $15,000 per year plus $3000 out of pocket. According to my math, that is $18,000 per year, just to get in the door.

It's interesting how "you got yours", but oh well, I don't.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 20, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse


That was a LAST RESORT type of suggestion, along the lines of selling everything you own and going on Medicaid. I think I also said you could get a "Guaranteed Issue" policy, regardless of your cancer scare 10 years ago, but that is probably what you are referring to now as "outrageous prices". Lots of things I would like have "outrageous prices". Should Obama provide free Corvettes to everyone next?

If it really is less expensive to move, then I would pick that option or just save up as much as possible and move if (hopefully not at all) your get cancer again. I said "Life ain't easy." Nonetheless, options are available to you under the current system.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

People have quickly realized that the cure is worse than the disease. Yeah, republican rule was irresponsible and corrupt, but these democrats have taken it to a whole new level.

Posted by: peterg73 | January 20, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Healthcare reform is now DEAD.

I am one of the uninsurable (had cancer 10 yrs ago). A few days ago, I described to this forum how I can't afford healthcare at the outrageous prices. I do not qualify for ANY subsidies.

A very sympathetic right wing poster here (JakeD) suggested to me that I move across the country to Massachusetts in order to get healthcare since they have universal care.

The irony gods are rolling around in the heavens laughing.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 20, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

When a 3 to 1 advantage, succession to an icon's seat, unprecedented national attention, and the immediate future of the majority party's future becomes a 5% loss I would not look beyond the principal thrust of the winner's campaign to assess blame, and I think that cause is more precise here than blame. I don't think that any one, two, or three things done differently in the Coakley campaign would have changed the result.

Scott turned the election into a referendum on the healthcare bill towards which the Democrats are (were) heading.Initially, I perceived the thing as probably not perfect but so needed as to rationalize even letting the end justify the means. I believe that that perception gave the effort its huge early public support. By the time Massachusetts voted, the bill which would go to Obama was going to be the elephant which started out to be a donkey but designed by a committee.

I believe that the Bay State's Democrats and Indies voted against an overcompromised bill that falls hopelessly short of letting the end justify the means. I think that we have enfranchised so many very selfish one-agenda factions that it is no longer possible to produce anything that is good for the country, and that Massachusetts just told us that something is not always better than nothing.

Posted by: winger1 | January 20, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Hey, media, Martha did not run a bad campaign. Larry King saw right through that spin. But, hey, you're on the wrong side of this political movement, right? You don't get it, and haven't for a long time, but I digress.

Scott Brown, let's take back our gov't (and our money!)

Oh, and yeah, a big shout out to the great citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. You came through at the start of our great country and you came through again now.

Posted by: deeman | January 20, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Note to Capital Hill -

If something is "too big to fail", it's too big. Duh!

Posted by: antifish | January 20, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

You know that light at the end of the tunnel wasn't change after the 2008 elections it was the Republicans and special interests waiting to ambush hope.
Posted by: cooday
This is the end of BO’s Rope-a-Dope-with-Hope strategy.

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Blaming Coakley is like playing a shell game. She won the Democratic nomination handily and is a popular figure in MA.

No, it was not about her or even about Scott Brown. It was about repudiating anything that has the stench of the Obama Administration upon it. Though Pelosi and Reid share the blame, his policies have been a disaster for this country.

And Republicans, you can do a happy dance and strut about like roosters if you choose, but this was not a validation of your destructive policies either.

The general mood in America is that we are sick and tired of all of you.

Posted by: antifish | January 20, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

You know that light at the end of the tunnel wasn't change after the 2008 elections it was the Republicans and special interests waiting to ambush hope.

It doesn't matter that the majority of the problems we face today was caused by 8 years of Bush/Republicans/Special interests. Republican Scott Brown won.

As a minority in both houses, the Republicans have stopped change with hundreds of millions of dollars in ads. At one point 62 percent of the public were for public option in Health care reform. After the Republicans killed off public option and watered down the health care bill, they showed the majority of Americans who voted for President Obama who has the real power.

I wouldn't be surprised somewhere in the future, a new generation will create a parliament type of government here in this country to keep up with the times. A government quick on its feet and turn on a dime instead of being locked into long terms. Would Bush have survived this type of government? Would we have drug our selves deeper into the Iraq War when there was no WMD?

Bush's legacy is something the Republicans want to run away from in the 2010 and 2012 elections. They want a fresh start? Main street doesn't get a fresh start until our troops are home from both wars and the economy is fixed.

We are not giving up on independent voters this year Chris.

Courting all Independent voters for Democrats in 2010 and 2012 with -

Unbelievable Hockey Fight

Posted by: cooday | January 20, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Speaking as a liberal independent: what an own-goal. Reality check, anyway.

1. Arrogance. Yuck. Democrats overestimate the misty-eyed-ness of the nation--even of Massachusetts--for the Kennedys. Why should voters treat the seat as an K entitlement, some sort of torch to carry on for Ted's sake.

2. The wretched way Pelosi and Reid became the face of Obama's platform, and made health care reform into an old-fashioned slow-motion pork-stravaganza with goodies for pols and lobbies. Not "change you can believe in."

3. Not telling Americans they have to stop screaming for free lunches. It's over. Time for grownup trade-offs.

4. Bending over to make the cool guys of Wall Street happy.

5. The underwhelming hearings on the causes of our financial implosion. Where are the new Pecoras and Nesses, taking people to task (prosecutions, too, please)? 2008 was not a "perfect storm", it was man-made event.

Regulators not exempt either; that includes self-scrutiny of the agencies, and Capitol Hillers who oversaw SEC, banking and consumer debt laws.

7. Geithner. He says many of the right things but appears to do none of them.

8. For pity's sake, start putting teeth into finance regulations. Nothing fundamental has changed since 2008.

9. We hated when Republicans wouldn't call out their own bumblers when in charge; Democrats have to show spine. Rangel, Reid, Orszag, etc. Enough.

Posted by: Hunter | January 20, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

"Some of the free lunchers that post in the cc blog might have to consider getting a job now and contribute their fair share.

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse"

You mean like zouk/kingofzouk/snowbama/moonbat/drivl? It's hard to work all those screen names and actually do something productive.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Don't blame the candidate, blame the party. I'm ashamed to be associated with a party that is deaf and dumb. Howard Dean had it right when he took campaign money and muscle into every state, even the ones we would likely not have a chance to win. He, in my mind, is responsible for Democratic candidates taking back Congress. Now, we kick him out and go back to the old ways.

People vote emotionally. Brown made them feel good, Coakley did not. It is really that simple.

Posted by: goodgovernment | January 20, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Don't blame the candidate, blame the party. I'm ashamed to be associated with a party that is deaf and dumb. Howard Dean had it right when he took campaign money and muscle into every state, even the ones we would likely not have a chance to win. He, in my mind, is responsible for Democratic candidates taking back Congress. Now, we kick him out and go back to the old ways.

People vote emotionally. Brown made them feel good, Coakley did not. It is really that simple.

Posted by: goodgovernment | January 20, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Some of the free lunchers that post in the cc blog might have to consider getting a job now and contribute their fair share.

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

I hope that the Republicans, of which I am one, don't take this as a signal to go back to the same-old!

They had better have listened to the message in Massachusetts which is "Stop Spending At Any Cost" no pun intended!

McCain is not the model we want. He was just as willing to go into debt as Obama.

No more spending. Let the failed corporations die: GM, AIG, Chrysler, etc. and let them rise out of the dust and be reborn or stay in their graves.

You don't learn unless you fail and pay the price.

Posted by: jlewis2 | January 20, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Isn't it funny that Scott Brown is saying he is and will be Mr. Independent but his state voting record agreed with Republicans 90 percent of the time. People also need to be patient with Obama because of all the trouble he inherited from the same Republicans who are blocking his nominees at more than twice the rate of Bush in his first term and who's policies got us in the mess we are in. I hope the American people will be smarter and think about the road we have been down with Republicans and with Scott Brwon saying he will be "Mr. Independent". He will vote with Republicans. At least Joe Lieberman has some independence. By the way I am a liberal.

Posted by: Brainny | January 20, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

I voted for Martha. But Scott Brown ran a strategically clever campaign and there were so many things wrong with the Coakley campaign, to many to count. She didn't connect with voters. No resonance whatsoever. Her handlers didn't help her loosen up or teach her how to sound less like a lawyer and more like real person. Her approach to the issues was shallow. Although she has a compelling personal and professional history, she never let the voters get to know her. Moreover, the Democratic party (state and national) let her down. Instead of running a meaningful campaign, attempting to persuade the 51% of Massachusetts voters who are independent, they wasted volunteers' time repeatedly calling their committed base to beg them to vote for Martha. Even after I donated money to her campaign (multiple times, I received 14 phone calls the day of the election, 20 in the two preceding days, and 9 in the week before that, in addition to the 100 or more emails I received....all well meaning volunteers trying to convince me to go to the polls and vote. The word in our small left leaning town was that they had gotten so many harassing phone calls that they had become turned off to the race. That was the extent of the campaign out here in western Mass. There was no voter education, no GOTV activities, meet and greets, no organized effort to help transport housebound voters to the polls, no mention of absentee ballots, no appearances in small local independent venues, no rallies (except one small one in Greenfield, before the primary), no nothing except phone banks. In the first contested US Senate race in the state in 26 years, you would think that the Dems would have comprehended the importance of interaction and visibility.

Posted by: embarrassed | January 20, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse

When Washington dismissed the million plus teaparty member last year the Democrats fates were sealed. When the elite banksters automobsters get the bailouts and the people are taxed more it is time to throw these Democrats under the trains.

Posted by: magnoliabel | January 20, 2010 6:34 AM | Report abuse

A great night for the United States of America, truly breathtaking for reasons that need not be explained. The unconstitutional power grab known as Health Care Reform lists dead in the water; the Obama Administration has suffered a rebuke that makes Clinton's 1994 failure look puny by comparison. The Constitution, 24 hours ago thought to be a dead, "quaint" and archaic relic, lives on. I look forward to the next few days, as Democrat members of the House look for ways to jump ship in order to save their political skins.

Obama, and the Dems, with Pelosi barking at the helm and Reid kow-towing like an abused dog that knows no other way, flew too close to the sun, and now their wings have melted.

Posted by: pjkesq1 | January 20, 2010 4:50 AM | Report abuse

I live in the people's republic of Cambridge Mass., and there was no sign of enthusiasm for Coakley--literally no sign, poster, button, billboard. that's partly but not chiefly coakley's fault. I suspect other the other primary candidates would have lost as well. Massachusetts has already found its version of universal health care to be a lot costlier than promised, and the independent voters, not just republicans, simply were in no mood to spend a trillion dollars to pay for the health care of people in Nebraska or Louisiana or the labor unions. This was a big bill and the Democrats were rushing it through, making it up as they went along, and the deals all smelled bad--worse than pork barrels on a bill that was not mere pork barrel but a huge takeover of the private economy by the government. It probably would have gradually gotten more support once it was passed, like every big, new entitlement, --but it was a very bad idea, bad for the country, and I think popular instincts here were good. The bigger the change, the more cautious and deliberate one should be--we have a bicameral legislature for a good reason (that was surely tonight's big winner!), to force even a big political change to be thoughtful. Every political party becomes hubristic and bad when it has unitary and undivided power, that's human nature. In criticizing Bush and the Republican supremacy, did the Democrats think themselves exempt from the same folly? As the "yes" party, they suffer it all the more strongly. I say cheers to the continued health of the "no" party, democrat or republican.

Posted by: LaSp | January 20, 2010 3:39 AM | Report abuse

thurgle i understand when someone is crying out for help obiously you are please get the help you so urgently need soon

Posted by: bostonohyea | January 20, 2010 3:17 AM | Report abuse

thurgle wtf

Posted by: bostonohyea | January 20, 2010 3:13 AM | Report abuse

what this should do is make the dems or independents realize that people are not going to go for the same old same old-maybe listen to their people instead of their so-called leaders-they do not elect them we will vote you out and fast!!!!

Posted by: bostonohyea | January 20, 2010 3:11 AM | Report abuse

I read somewhere that when Obama was a state senator in Illinois he learned that one had to go along to get along: to achieve things in a legislature means getting the interests concerned in the drafting of laws on board. This seems to be the lesson he took with him to the White House, as instanced by his appointment of Geithner and Summers, his refusal to take principled stands on torture and gays in the military, his refusal to provide a larger stimulus package not loaded down with stimulus-poor tax breaks, his allowing the banks to write the legislation that would govern them, his making backroom deals with big pharma and the insurance companies so as to get a health care bill through, and so on and on. If these were normal times, he would have been right to steer so "centrist" (re: DC establishmentarian) a course. But at a time when confidence in megacorporations, esp. banks and insurance companies, is lower than at any time since the Great Depression, and a tidal wave of populist backlash against the established order was rising, his course was suicidal. I'm sure he convinced himself that coddling corporations was the wise move politically and the right move for the country. But Obama is no economist; he doesn't really know whether propping up the banks or putting them into receivership was the wisest course economically. As a politicial, however, what he should have known is that he got on the right side of the rising populism, he would have the best chance a President has had since the 1960s remake the economy in general and the care sector in particular by targeting corporations: breaking up too-big-to-fail banks and extending a Medicare option to the entire population. Simple and popular, and good for the country. He could have been FDR. Or he could at least have been a contender. But instead, like Brando's character in "On the Waterfront", he sold out and took a fall for the corrupt establishment. And he doesn't have Rod Steiger to blame.

Posted by: thurgle | January 20, 2010 3:11 AM | Report abuse

ok its time for someome from boston to tell you why marsha lost-first-off patrick kennedy teds son called her marsha-beautiful we loved that in boston-anyway marta coakly-as we boston people know her as had these wonderful ads she spelled massachussetts wrong with 2 es they got taken down then she put a ups what can brown do for you-that got threatened with a lawsuit-then she put a picture of scott brown behing the world trade center pre 9/11that got taken down shes dirty politics he ran clean saying i am the 41 senator ill stop the madness pres obama has tried in virgina nj coppenhaggen and mass all to no avail ohhh by the way little known fact marta coackly took 6 days off after christmas for vacation to go sking kinda cocky-ya think

Posted by: bostonohyea | January 20, 2010 3:02 AM | Report abuse

Obviously when Barack Obama is on a ticket he brings a large black turnout to the table.

Equally clearly no amount of hectoring on his part can reproduce that turnout when he's not on the ticket.

A plague on anyone who wants to use this comment to foment racial prejudice.

If Joe Flacco were on the ticket for mayor of Baltimore I'd expect an uptick in Italian votes, which couldn't be duplicated were Joe Flacco the quarterback to campaign for Bernice Olshevsky.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | January 20, 2010 2:50 AM | Report abuse

emm2, Americans have completely forgotten the wrath of evil with which Bush ruled this country while he and his cronies drove it into the ground. A trillion spent and thousands dead for a needless war in Iraq seems like nothing to some compared to horror of universal health care.

I'm liking this hubris of the right wingers on this Cosmo centerfold getting elected. They are ignoring how bad the Democratic candidates actually were in this and the Virginia gov election. Brown has to defend this seat in 2012 and he will be facing MUCH stronger opposition. Laugh now teabaggers, the fight is now on!

Posted by: Mike_in_CA | January 20, 2010 2:45 AM | Report abuse

Comparing this special election to the last presidential election in Massachusetts...

Scott Brown received 60,000 more votes than McCain did in 2008,

And Coakley got 800,000 fewer votes than Obama did.

For some reason, a lot of Obama voters seem to have stayed home for this special election. Perhaps it was complacency, anger, disappointment, or a combination of all three. Nevertheless, assertions that Obama voters have turned en masse into Brown voters seem unsubstantiated. Unless one were to assume that McCain voters simultaneously switched their affiliation to Coakley.

Posted by: tjshire | January 20, 2010 2:31 AM | Report abuse

(I kept that car around just in case. It made me feel independent).

Posted by: douglaslbarber | January 20, 2010 2:22 AM | Report abuse

Political-Peanut wrote, "I would like to see Scott drive his truck in REVERSE all the way to Washington !!!"

Hahaha. I once had a car which only worked in reverse, and at the time I couldn't afford a better one.

I confess, I stuck to the busses.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | January 20, 2010 2:19 AM | Report abuse

Ernest Hemingway famously wrote that you knew you'd had good sex when the eath moved.

Massachussets had good sex tonight.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | January 20, 2010 2:12 AM | Report abuse

In order to vote on a bill in the Senate, debate must be ended; in order to end debate a motion for cloture must pass; it takes 60 votes for a cloture motion to pass. Therefore it takes 60 votes for a bill to come to a vote. Those are the rules of the Senate.

The U.S. Constituion states in Article I, Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

Posted by: screwjob2 | January 20, 2010 1:41 AM | Report abuse

I would like to see Scott drive his truck in REVERSE all the way to Washington !!!

Posted by: Political-Peanut | January 20, 2010 1:40 AM | Report abuse

vaconserve wrote:

"In November, we'll simply take back the country."

Take back the country?! Did you just wake up this past year after an eight year coma? Are you unaware that Bush left the country with 2 losing wars, few foreign allies, a lot more enemies, a huge deficit, the worst recession since the Great Depression, and TARP.

Get real -- it would take anyone, Democrat or Republican, more than a year to undo Bush's legacy. I'm grateful that we have a president who is intelligent, educated and thoughtful, unlike Bush "Bring-em-on-I'm-the-decider".

Wanting Bush back is like saying "there's no place like home" when home is post-Katrina New Orleans.

Posted by: emm2 | January 20, 2010 1:37 AM | Report abuse

R.I.P. Ted Kennedy

Posted by: BaracksTeleprompter | January 20, 2010 1:35 AM | Report abuse

I seem to be missing how all of a sudden 41% has become a majority -- the Dems still have 18 votes more than the Republicans. I think the press has really misled the country by making people think that the Senate needs 60 votes to pass legislation. A simple majority is all that is needed.

Harry Reid needs to grow a backbone. Let the Republicans filibuster so voters can see which party is perfectly happy keeping our current dysfunctional healthcare system without offering any constructive alternatives.

Posted by: emm2 | January 20, 2010 1:15 AM | Report abuse

So let ME be clear, I inherited this Coakley problem. It is, ummm, actually the fault of the previous Administration.

I have authorized MY administration to hate this Scott-guy because Michelle and Valerie seem to show, ummm, too much interest in him.

Posted by: MtWest9 | January 20, 2010 12:59 AM | Report abuse

If President Obama and the Democrats don't want to bring about the change we can believe in, the change he campaigned on, the voters certainly will.

Enter Senator-elect Scott Brown (R), Mass.

Posted by: wsealsjr | January 20, 2010 12:54 AM | Report abuse

chuckbarb23 wrote: "You know, after reading through the posts, it's clear that if the posts from Republlcans evident here are representative of the entire party, Democrats don't have much to worry about, Coakley's defeat notwithstanding." That's exactly what we want you to think. Don't worry about a thing. Just keep reassuring yourselves that you don't have anything to worry about. In November, we'll simply take back the country.

Posted by: vaconserve | January 20, 2010 12:51 AM | Report abuse

Did John Kerry get wounded again, or just trip over his ego, or fall on his pompus a**, whats wth the crutches? Thanks Scott, for delieveing a first class message driving a truck. Was hiliarious as hell watching Kriss Mathews reduced to a babbling crying taking head. What a treat, and Olberman the mouth hiding under his desk, and MSNBC, throwing Maddow in to impersonate a womans point of view....LMAO

Posted by: jskantze | January 20, 2010 12:43 AM | Report abuse

"We Backed The Wrong Horse."

Your Editorial Staff

Posted by: screwjob2 | January 20, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

"The citizens of Mass. have honorably REJECTED national socialism."

Does that mean they'll be giving up their Social Security?

Posted by: Kelly14 | January 20, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

This is a win against a government that has literally stopped listening to its citizens. A government that spends billions without reading the bills. This is a vote against deaf, cocky, power-obsessed, career politicians in Washington. A vote against stupid RED AND BLUE POLITICS. A vote against 'closed door' politics. A vote against protecting terrorists at the expense of our countrymen. Against a President who has continued to waste our time and his resources with his constant and non-stop campaigning. He won the election--now go to work!

The sad part is we have 3 more years of this guy and the damage he has already done will not be apparent until the deficit has been fully realized. This president lied in his 2008 campaign promises of no government-run healthcare and centrist spending and he continues.

We must hold the president accountable and stay vigilant by insisting to vote in politicians that will work TOGETHER for us.

Posted by: lightb8lb | January 20, 2010 12:29 AM | Report abuse

This is an old story. The right has lied to and jazzed up the uninformed so that they would vote and act against their interests again. That's how we got Nixon. It's how we got W. It's how we ended up with a war that never needed to be fought and a wrecked economy. It's why American has been steadily fading for many years now.

The right always does best when it's not actually doing anything and does not have to be held accountable for the absurdity of its ideas. If we're really dumb enough to put them in power again, the ideas will fail again. It's amazing that some people never learn. But if bleating nonsense like "socialism" and "death panels" and "free tax cuts" (how do you think we got these deficits in the first place?) can carry the day, we're pretty much doomed to failure anyway.

The oligarchs who have been steadily wrecking America for their gain and increasing our misery to make us more beholden to them are gleeful for good reason. They won. What anyone else is happy about makes no sense.

Posted by: NomoStew | January 20, 2010 12:26 AM | Report abuse

political-peanut wrote:

"I wonder what crow taste like?"

Chicken - What doesn't? :D

This night marks the first time in a very long while that reading and watching news has been enjoyable.

Posted by: deadmanwalking | January 20, 2010 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Happy One-Year Anniversary, Barry.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Bear in mind, Scott Brown has just been elected to fill the remainder of Ted Kennedy's term in the US Senate. He will have to run for re-election in less than two years. Two years should be all that's needed to expose him as the generic Republican gas-bag he truly is. In January 2013, expect to be looking at junior Senator Mike Capuano in a seat Brown has merely kept warm. (That is, assuming Brown is wearing a shirt and trousers.)

Posted by: woodmack | January 20, 2010 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Really enjoy your writing & analysis. Here's some more perspective on today:
I worked as a volunteer this fall on the mayoral election in Newton, MA for the candidate who lost to Setti Warren.
At a fundraiser a couple weeks back (at which Martha made an appearance), one of the full-time volunteers, a former journalist and experienced campaigner, told us that she tried to work for the Coakley campaign, but she felt insulted by their office management ("it was being run by kids"). We have since heard, 2nd hand, other such stories. In addition, friends and co-workers (Democrats!) reported feeling angry, not at Obama, but at Coakley and her campaign tactics - to the point of not voting.
In short - anger was there, uncertainty about the economy was there, but 30-50% of the loss is directly attributable to the lack of engagement by Coakley and the mismanagement of her campaign. It was more Coakley's loss than a referendum on the national Democratic party. Remember, since 1950, the Massachusetts Governor's office has been held by _eight_ Republicans vs seven Democrats - no way a one-party state for the executive branch!
Fred in Newton, MA

Posted by: Fred217 | January 20, 2010 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Wow! Mass have you any idea what you have done? I don't vote with my emotion I look at the logic. So many times have a felt sick to my stomach with the dems, but I have never forgotten what the rethugs did, and will do if you put them back in control of this country! Obama and the dems needed this wakeup call!

Posted by: KissmyBoot | January 20, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Fact: Congress passes all spending bills and are charged with lending legislation.
Fact: Congress has been in the hands of democrats since 2006. 2 full years before Bush left office.
Fact: Bush and other Republicans warned about the coming banking crises and cautioned to reign in Freddie and Fanny's flawed lending practices 2 years before the collapse.
Fact: The democrat controlled congress REFUSED for 2 reasons:
a: Freddie was a cash cow for democrat re-election coffers.
Frank Raines was the head of Freddie and they did not want him touched for some reason.
Fact: Obama was part of that congress.
Fact: Blacks voted for Obama @ 95%.
Fact: Whites voted for Obama @ 43%.
Fact: The numbers show Blacks voted for Obama JUST BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK, which is a RACIST reason for doing so.
Fact: Democratic policies since the Johnson administration
have destroyed the black family, which was stronger than whites at that time. Those policies paid black women NOT to get married, and would add to the monthly stipend for each child born out of wedlock.
Those same policies broke up poor white families as well.
Those same policies built the inner city slums of today, places that are some of the most unsafe IN THE WORLD.
The Black community has suffered this disease of poverty due to voting for democrats who continue to promise to help them but never deliver.
Einstein said: The definition of insanity is to do something over and over again expecting different results.
Liberals teach others that they are OWED something. No-one is OWED anything. Thinking you deserve the fruits of another's labor is the sin of covetousness. God WILL NOT BE MOCKED, you cannot continue to brake His laws and expect to be blessed. As long as you believe and act on sin, you will be a SLAVE to that sin, and the burden of that sin will be laid on your back.
You voted for the metro-male and the thieves in congress we have now. You are now REAPING THE REWARD OF GENERATIONAL SIN.
In order to stop the punishment you are placing on yourselves, you must do things differently, that is called repentance (turning away from what you use to do).
I am not saying vote republican. I am saying vote conservative principles. I am saying find a new way of doing things. I am saying find a need in peoples lives and fill it.

Posted by: funbowhunter | January 20, 2010 12:10 AM | Report abuse


A vote for racial harmony was not a vote for big government and higher taxes.

The whole thing was a delusion.

The democrats set out to fool America, and they ended up fooling themselves.

Incredible, however that is what just happened.

Right in front of our eyes.


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 19, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

The swing toward Republicans was 20 points in NJ and VA, now 30+ in MA. Which Democrats won by more than 30 points last time? Those are the safe seats.

Posted by: jy151310 | January 19, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what crow taste like?

Posted by: Political-Peanut | January 19, 2010 11:49 PM | Report abuse

When you do your winners and losers column, remember to include that guy who lost the gubernatorial race in VA. He no longer holds the title of worst political campaign ever.

Posted by: caribis | January 19, 2010 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Here's another repercussion Chris: Your annoying little Beltway rag is continuing to shrink by the month, and you will probably be out of a job soon.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: screwjob2 | January 19, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

I am quite pleased that the Dems lost this one. They need a reality check. How does someone seek to replace the "Lion of the Senate" by being lackadaisical? The Party is lacklustre and they seem to revel in it while parading and pompisetting. An unacceptable number of our Representatives are obvious posessions of the moneyed and greedy. Ordinary and poor people are catching hell while their Representatives feign ignorance and/or outrage (some of them are grossly ignorant). The Party WILL pay a big price unless President Obama steps forward and not only talks the game but demonstrates the kind of leadership that we can find in many of our great men and women of history. He is the only elected Represeentative in this nation who can attract attention from his supporters and detractors for longer than a CN sound bite. The President must be out front in facing this issue and be quite clear about why he is doing so. Universal Healthcare or its equivalent is an eventuality. President Obama may lose his presidency over it. America's loss will be greater but we usually need to be shown..... usually.

Posted by: Draesop | January 19, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama ........ for the first time in my life ....... I am PROUD to drive a TRUCK !!!

Posted by: Political-Peanut | January 19, 2010 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama's radical leftist tactics make him the best friend the Republicans have had in a long time.

The tea party is only beginning.


Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | January 19, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Most of the talk I hear from the left concerns "disatsers" caused by "badly run campaigns" or "brilliantly run campaings" by the Reps. Look again, lefties ... This is a patriotic uprising led by real Americans that have decided that they do NOT want unconstitutional federal individual mandates, They do NOT want a socialist style takeover of the healthcare system, they do NOT want 40% taxes levied on expensive insurance plans (excepting labor unions). Face it people. The citizens of Mass. have honorably REJECTED national socialism. Some of you on the left just cannot accept that, can you?

Posted by: madhtr | January 19, 2010 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Note - Unenrolled voters were key to Scott Brown's victory. Not being affiliated, they know that for the country to move forward, there needs to be a more CENTRIST political view - not dominated by Liberal or Conservative Agendas.

Be careful Washington - It is best to stay in the middle on all issues or else you too will be voted out of office..

Posted by: JonathanfromMA | January 19, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse

The big democrats in Massachusetts - when they saw the opportunity - decided to do Coakley in instead of coming to her aid with a robust get-out-the-vote operation.

Im sure several democrats tonight are beginning to do the calculations to become the democratic nominee for the Senate in 2012.

It makes sense - if they pulled out everything for Coakley, there was nothing in there for them - if they didn't they had a chance in 2012.

A Senate seat in Massachusetts has been really rare - so instead of letting Coakley have it, they decided to let these events play out.


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 19, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

And after all is said and done, you may take a few moments to thank your lucky stars, your party, your g(G)od(s)(esses): you are not scrivener50.

He is a tortured soul and no one is coming to the rescue.

scrivener50, I hope you get through this time in your life to a better place.


Posted by: shrink2 | January 19, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

If Democrats are looking to play the blame game, then let them look to their own state legislature. This should be a lesson in why a party should not tinker with election laws to gain a potential slight edge at the moment. If this were still 2004, the Democratic governor simply could have appointed a Democrat to the seat, but instead state Democrats were paranoid that Kerry might win and that Romney would put in a Republican instead. This special election happened thanks to that meddling.

It really serves Democrats right, though. They tried to circumvent the governor's power, and so they threw the power to the people. Unfortunately for them, the people in Massachusetts can be more fickle than the governor's mansion is.

Posted by: blert | January 19, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: JakeD | January 19, 2010 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Massachusetts!

Posted by: georges2 | January 19, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse


Putting Health Care Reform Before Restoration of the Rule of Law -- Decimated Under Eight Years of the Bush-Cheney Reign of Terror

What good is health care reform when a multi-agency federal-local extrajudicial Gestapo has infiltrated health care facilities nationwide with community "watch" vigilantes who compromise the care of so-called "targeted" Americans?


* Thousands of Americans, deemed to be "dissidents" or undesirables, targeted by Bush legacy program for debilitating, cell tower- based microwave/laser assault, held hostage in their own homes to fed-supported vigilante "community policing" stalking units, equipped with warrantless GPS devices, who vandalize and terrorize as local police look the other way.

* "Directed energy weapons" -- a nationwide installation employing cell towers and satellites -- induce weakness, exhaustion, mood changes, pain, head and body aches, physical and neurological impairment, strokes, aneurysms, cancer -- and many victims do not realize what is making them sick.

* Regional Homeland Security- administered "fusion centers" reportedly serve as command centers for covert electromagnetic radiation attacks, pervasive surveillance, financial sabotage of those identified as "dissidents," "trouble-makers" or slandered as threats to society.

* Use of microwave weaponry to torture and impair political opponents recently confirmed by deposed Honduras President Manuel Zelaya.

* Pleas for justice, to local police and FBI, go unanswered -- as do demands for a Department of Justice Civil Rights Division investigation and congressional hearings.

"These are crimes against humanity and the Constitution, being perpetrated under the cover of national security and 'safe streets' by multiple federal and local agencies and commands -- an American genocide hiding in plain sight, enabled by the naivete of those who think 'it can't happen here.'" -- Victor Livingston, former reporter for WTXF-TV Philadelphia, Phila. Bulletin, N.Y. Daily News, St. Petersburg Times; producer/host, MSG Network Sports Business Report; columnist,

See: "U.S. Silently Tortures Americans with Cell Tower Microwaves" and "Gestapo USA; Fed-Funded Vigilante Network Terrorizes Americans" at: (Journalism groups -- Reporting) OR (see "stories" list)

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 19, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse


It might be useful to take a look at the democratic primary held last month in Massachusetts - and examine the supporters of all the candidates in that race and where they fell.

The reason is the get-out-the-vote operation fell flat -

And while it is Coakley's fault - the other heavy-weight democrats in Massachusetts didn't appear to come to her side that quickly with their get-out-the-vote operations.


A Scott Brown victory means that perhaps this Senate seat will be open for a another democrat in two years - this is an opportunity which has been extremely rare in Massachusetts over the past few decades.

You never know, the political calculations made last summer, when people thought a Kennedy may have entered the race, might be different now.

Clearly, another democrat has a chance to step forward and win the Senate seat in 2012.

Special elections are strange creatures - people make quick calculations - candidates with money in the bank and contributors established are at a distinct advantage.

I think the democrats in Massachusetts should have been able to pull it out.

One should look at who could have quickly put a get-out-the-vote operation together quickly - and whether they swung into action quickly or sort of didn't.

That is much different from having the contributors ready and willing.

It seems, when they had the chance, it was the democratic heavy weights in Massachusetts who did Coakley in - so that they could perhaps go for the open seat in 2012.

Even Vicky Kennedy appeared to be thinking about it in an interview today.


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 19, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

You know, after reading through the posts, it's clear that if the posts from Republlcans evident here are representative of the entire party, Democrats don't have much to worry about, Coakley's defeat notwithstanding. The vast majority of the Republican posts seem to be simple all-caps ranting or doggerel. No analysis, for the most part. They seem to think that calling Obama "Barry" is the height of wit.

Posted by: chuckbarb23 | January 19, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid is next....

Posted by: lindy226 | January 19, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

It looks like a lousy candidate lost to a good one. I'm out here in Colorado and I'm thinking that we have two lousy candidates on my side, the Democrats, for the Senate race--the liberal and the empty suit--and come November either one will be dead meat.
Well it's going to be hard for the Democrats to actually lose the Senate, but I give them credit, they will run the races as well as they govern and lose as many as they can.
The most incredible thing here is that the GOP is winning with nothing--no ideas, no program, no honesty and no ethics. As far as my party, we suck.

Posted by: ThomasFiore | January 19, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

What are the odds that Republicans will let Scott Brown (if seated by then!) deliver the rebuttal to the President's State of the Union? Highly unlikely, but talk about a slap in the face!...and then some!

Posted by: bjammin109 | January 19, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

AHHHH. Gridlock.

Posted by: kaygeejay | January 19, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse


So, the END OF THE COLD WAR was not a positive thing?

Posted by: JakeD | January 19, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse



Posted by: AMERICAWAKEUPNOW | January 19, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse


If they try to pass the Senate version of Health Care right now - and there are pictures of Obama signing that legislation on television, the democrats will lose 100 seats in the House this fall.

It is pretty simple.

I just don't think half the people are talking that way are thinking about at all what the political calculations of the House has to be.

They don't want to get Coakleyed.


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 19, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

I honestly believe that the Republican are snakes and they will mess up as usual. Democrats are no better, but at least they are progressive, they have ideals. Republicans sit around and whine about what should and should not be, but they never do anything. Republicans are all talk, they are do nothings, they lack intergity and hide behind their so call morals. I am sure they will do everything they can to derail progress and I see it happening now. Mark my work, Republicans cannot make this country a better place, they have never tried and they will use their underhand tricks to make a mockery of the American People. I also believe that their are so many Americans who have no common sense at all, mostly these so call conservatives. People don't realize, these conservatives are the people who got us in the economic mess we are in now. Everybody know that the bank execs, mortgage lenders, home builders who overbuilt, were Republicans who are not even getting a slap on the wrist. If it was not for a bailout, thousand of more people would have been unemployed, several major banks would have failed, and still it would have been Obama's fault because you Republicans would blame him for the cold weather. Furthermore the thousands of people laid off since late 2008 could not easily find a job within weeks, but you idiot Republicans fooled others to believeing it was possible and it was Obama's fault that people are not working. First of all, this is not the 1930's, Americans, both Republicans and Democrats are too lazy to take any kind of job, we sit up on our high horses and look down at professions because we think they are too good, or they don't supplement our unnecessary expenses. So of course people can't find jobs, and the government is suppose to create jobs, I thought you Republicans did not want government in your lives, but anytime there is a need, just like everyone else, you are sticking your hands out, such hypocrits, always want to tell people who they can or cannot marry, if they can or cannot adopt children base on their sexual orientation, what they can or cannot do with their bodies.

Posted by: devmonbar | January 19, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

We've taken Massachusetts, now we're gonna take New York, then California...Yeeeeeaahh!

Posted by: houston123 | January 19, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Since it seems the narrative of this special election has been all about health care, I'm still waiting for the article that points out that MA already has a plan that resembles what is being proposed nationally. Has anyone in the press examined whether it is disliked there? Or are MA voters perhaps apathetic because they already have what the rest of the country might never get?

Posted by: newmarket26 | January 19, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Regarding passing the Senate version of ObamaCare, unamended, in the House:

The House passed ObamaCare 220 to 215. Since then one Yes vote has resigned (Wexler), and one has stated he will switch to No (Cao). That makes it 218 to 216 in favor.

If we wildly assume that after tonight's Massachusetts result no Democrat from the No side will be rushing to switch their vote to Yes, that means that Pelosi can only loose 1 single vote from the Yes side and still pass the bill.

So what are the chances that:

1. The loss of a Deep Blue state (Mass) and a Deep Blue seat (Ted's) to a Republican who made his opposition to ObamaCare central to his winning campaign will sway at most only 1 Yes vote out of 218? And that simultaneously...

2. All of the 217 remaining Yes votes will again vote Yes for the Senate bill which is significantly less "progressive"?

Sure, Nancy can hold the 218 together. It can happen. Anything can happen. Heck, if a Republican can win in Massachusetts, then why can's Nancy hold the 218 together?

Posted by: no13 | January 19, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

I personally feel strongly that the beliefs of the vast majority of Americans lie somewhere between "far right" and "far left." Because the news media typically highlight the poles and because the primary election process also heavily favors more radicalized candidates (left and right)... essentially the result is that we ALWAYS want change because generally we're NEVER happy with what we have.

I truly believe (despite much press to the contrary) that Obama has tried to reach out to the right and be a true moderate -- which is what most people in the country want and don't even realize they are getting. Because of the loud and persuasive voices on both sides, I don't believe the truth about many of the administration's policies and proposals is even understood by the majority of the electorate.

The reason a pragmatic policy that SHOULD work has not is because the Republicans have been incredibly and, I daresay admirably, unified in being the party of no. Obama took the gamble, I believe, that Republicans cared for the country more than they do for seeing the Democrats fail. He gambled wrong.

As a moderate, I was not a believer in reconciliation, but it suddenly seems clear that it is the only way to get anything done. If he's going to be called a liberal, he might as well roll up his sleeves and start acting like one, because there's no point in trying to compromise. In this hyperpartisan environment, it seems that compromise cannot be had. So let's not give up hope. Perhaps this bizarre turn of events will somehow prove a blessing in disguise.

Posted by: newmarket26 | January 19, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse


OK the retirements are to be watched - HOWEVER THE BIG STORY IS IN THE HOUSE - those House members who want to run for re-election but believe now that any further support for Obama's health care bill will be TOXIC.

Pretty simple.

The political balance in the House has shifted dramatically over the past week.

Someone tell Nancy, from listening to her today, she doesn't understand that.



Posted by: 37thand0street | January 19, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Brown just said "when there's trouble in Massachusetts, you can bet there's trouble across the United States". He is so right! If a rich, blue state like MA is PO'd, you can bet there are many others with the same mindset. Massachusetts has hopefully laid the groundwork and set a precedent that we can take America back in 2010 from these progressives who have been wringing their hands over their nefarious intentions for our future.

Good work Massachusetts and thank you!

Posted by: williepete1 | January 19, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Barry's a failure. No Democrat's reelection is secure. You Blue Dogs are toast. Goodbye Harry!!!! You're gonna lose.

Govt health care takeover is finished. Cap and tax is finished.

Posted by: johnhopkinson2004 | January 19, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

It is the first time in my adult life I am proud of Massachusetts.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | January 19, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse









Posted by: Political-Peanut | January 19, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

So if I understand right, the people of Mass and the US want insurers to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, cap benefits and raise premiums 20% a year -- at least that is what the MSM (who a year ago predicted the Repubs would never elect another Senator) are saying. I don't think so. Get Rahm ("you can roll me anytime if you elect me mayor of Chicago") out of political decisionmaking and get some advisors with principles in the WH and the Dems will survive 2010. And make the Repubs go to the mattresses and read the phone book instead of allowing the non-filibuster. Enough Americans will see this as the phony fight it is on CSPAN and chase half the Repubs out of their Senate offices. And the 3-4 Repub Senators who actually care about the country will vote for health care and it will all be over.

Posted by: grclarkdc1 | January 19, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Obamacare is so 2009!

Posted by: dennis10 | January 19, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

for the first time in my adult life i am proud to be from massachusetts.

Posted by: Mama3 | January 19, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

So many people are aware of and disappointed Obama has broken many campaign promises, probably more in his first year than any other president during four or eight years. He could partly recover if he tried the following:

1) revise the health care bill, so there are fewer regulations, no reductions in Medicare spending, have the most popular reforms, especially the ban on discrimination based on preexisting conditions, annual and lifetime limits go into effect within three months, include tort reform to win over a few moderate Republicans. Having the reforms go into effect before the Congressional elections would give Obama and the Democrats something to point to that had already gone into effect, which is overwhelmingly approved by the people in this country.

2) he should avoid going out of the country for the next ten months, concentrating his attention fully upon passing a modified health care reform bill and improving the economy

3) Obama, Democrats in Congress should defer trying to pass cap and trade, as well as amnesty for illegal immigrants, until next year

4) Obama needs to be more honest with the people in this country, he needs to stop blaming Bush II for everything and having a similar my way or the highway approach in trying to win support for his policies

I think if Obama did these, along with a slightly improving economy and probable somewhat lower unemployment rate by late October, the Democrats would have minimal losses in the elections this year, especially the Senate

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | January 19, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

"Watch Martha Coakley's incredibly depressing concession speech: "

I disagree. I was glad she lost, but I thought she showed a lot of class up on the podium tonight.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | January 19, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse



Coakely has received poetic justice for her horrific oppression of the Amirault family as well as the family with the one-year-old baby girl who was raped in 2005.

This cancels angry unlawful Al's seat he stole from the Minnesota electorate.

God is good!!!

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 19, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama, you are no match for my company and our USA trillion dollar health care industry. Tomorrow, the stock market rallies again, why? Investors know we are on the way to unlimited profits. We own the Senators and we own the Congress. Obama, you should have just shut-up, and taken our cash, like the rest of them. Thank you America and thank you Senator Brown.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | January 19, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for rubbing it in with the losses in Virginia and New Jersey governors races too : )

Posted by: JakeD | January 19, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: powerange | January 19, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Can Barak Obama wake up?
That is the question.

So many politicians who succeeded beyond their dreams think the people who elected them (or in most places, who murdered people for them) are loyal. Ha!

Posted by: shrink2 | January 19, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Watch Martha Coakley's incredibly depressing concession speech:

Posted by: mjwilstein | January 19, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

The party of NO will block anything from getting done and blame Obama.

For the midterm elections Democrats need to get off their tushes and remember long and hard what 8 years of Bush got us into; what 8 years of Reagan did to the economy; what Phil Gramm did to deregulate our financial industry causing the recent crash; what taxes are evil theology has done to our infrastructure.

Do we really want to repeat history?

Posted by: streff | January 19, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: jahs4fun | January 19, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

I thought last year that winning sixty seats would be bad for the Democrats. Now it’s time to dismiss Joe Lieberman, allow Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln to represent their constituencies, and do it right. Let the bad guys filibuster. Mike Mansfield handled the bigots who fought Civil Rights in the 60s. This, like ...Social Security once was, is the moral issue of our time. It’s time for hardball!

Posted by: mikedow1 | January 19, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

I’m heartbroken over what just happened in Massachusetts. Scott Brown ran an honest campaign. He said he wanted to be the senator who stops healthcare reform. You’ll hear pundits explain this away by saying it was a low turnout special election, but we’ve known about the possibility for a loss for a few days. The p...eople want change? Back to what we had? I just don’t understand. I’m heartbroken.

Posted by: mikedow1 | January 19, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Strike four for Barry. His campaigning is almost as good as his bowling or his fastball.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 19, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

It's going to come down to the economy. The party in power is going to be blamed for the situation. It's going to take some time. The consolation is that only one election was held today instead of 30something in a victory that will certainly be overturned in two years. Hopefully things will have a chance to improve before November before more lasting damage occurs.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 19, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Our boycott of Boston is officially over! We are planning our first trip for May : )

Posted by: JakeD | January 19, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company