Holy Cow

[Jam Stunna]

Scott Brown wins Ted Kennedy's Senate seat

Now, before we get into the political nitty-gritty, let's just appreciate how amazing it is that this guy was down by 31 points two months ago in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1 which hadn't sent a Republican to the Senate since 1972. And he won.

Okay, that's out of the way. The gravity of this win cannot be understated. Even beyond the immediate implications for health care legislation, Democrats are suddenly very much on the defensive for November. They lost a seat that no one though they could; what else could happen?

 

[Aesir]

Don't Panic.

That should be the phrase Obama is sending his party, this loss isn't a huge set back health care reform will still pass. Furthermore Coakley wasn't a strong candidate anyway, she was actually pretty pathetic which is really the problem New England Liberals have they don't have an energizing personality. In two years Brown will be gone and a decent Democrat will reclaim that seat.

All this really does is boost the ego of the "no" party so at this point anything can happen. At least Connecticut doesn't have to worry about this.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, I agree with Aesir. I was also listening to CSPAN radio this morning and they brought up a lot of the same points. Also remember that the Dems have had a lot of surprising victories as well, such as this.

I'm still surprised Scott Brown won though.

 

[Aesir]

Democrats have wasted to much political capital on health care reform already, backing down now would repeat 1992 which is exactly what I don't want. The white house needs this victory it will strengthen the Democratic party because the public has this perception that the dems never get anything done. Passing health care reform might lose a few seats but in the long run it will strengthen them, it's far better than licking your wounds and losing 50 house seats (at least) and being known as a party to dysfunctional to govern.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Democrats have wasted to much political capital on health care reform already, backing down now would repeat 1992 which is exactly what I don't want.

My apologies, but would you mind elaborating as to what took place in 1992? Thank you kindly.

 

[Aesir]

My apologies, but would you mind elaborating as to what took place in 1992? Thank you kindly.

dems tried to pass health care reform they got hammered public opinion began to drop then the dems backed off of health care reform giving Republicans a lot of ammunition against the democrats.

The result? they lost the majority they held for 50 years and the government became grid locked.

 

[Faithkeeper]

The result? they lost the majority they held for 50 years and the government became grid locked.

Thanks a lot.

That's a good point, I've heard that one of the reasons why the government doesn't seem to get much done is because neither party has had real control since I was old enough to start paying attention to politics. The opposing parties just make trouble for each other in getting things done.

 

[Eor]

Well with the fillibuster stuff the democrats basically need 60 votes to pass anything the minority party doesn't want, which is pretty much anything the majority party wants

 

[RDK]

I wish Republicans would go away and never come back.

America will be a lot better off when that whole generation is dead and buried.

 

[Aesir]

Well with the fillibuster stuff the democrats basically need 60 votes to pass anything the minority party doesn't want, which is pretty much anything the majority party wants

Nuclear Option over rides the fillibuster.

 

[Eor]

True, though whether or not they'll do the nuclear option is still up to be seen. While I hope they do, it would probably cause a lot of chaos because the republicans would all claim that this is the democrats overriding the constitution or whatever and changing the way the senate works to give them more power, and that it's because they're all dictator communist facists and so forth. And while such an argument is obviously dumb (if for nothing else then that the Republicans considered the nuclear option first a few years ago), most regular people won't know or remember that, and therefore probably believe the republicans. Though I wouldn't say that such an option would weaken then any more then not passing health care or other parts of their agenda would.

 

[Jam Stunna]

The reason why neither party has pulled the trigger on the nuclear option is because they both want the filibuster around for the inevitable next time that they're in the minority.

 

[Aesir]

Yeah, but the question is has the fillibuster ever been used to block bad legislation?

They could just cut a deal with scott brown, anyone with a brain knows when health care reform is over the republicans are going to drop him if not sooner than that. In MA Brown may be this conservative Republican, but when you compare him at the national level he's more liberal than some democrats.

 

[Jam Stunna]

It doesn't really matter if the filibuster blocks bad legislation. Neither party wants to give up the main weapon of the minority, and for good reason.

As for Scott Brown, I wouldn't be so sure about the GOP getting rid of him. For one, he basically performed a miracle by winning that seat. For two, the Republicans have to realize that he represents their best chance for holding that seat in the long-term, because the Dems are going to throw everything they've got at it to get it back in the future.

Lastly, and this is just a guess by me, but you're going to see a lot of Scott Brown-type candidates in the future. Brown represents a viable model for other New England Republicans: a fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate. New England is not as blue as we think we are, Republicans just haven't been running the right kind of candidates here. Scott Brown has shown them how to do it, and the RNC is definitely taking notes.

 

[Aesir]

It doesn't really matter if the filibuster blocks bad legislation. Neither party wants to give up the main weapon of the minority, and for good reason.

I under stand that, but right now they have a real chance to pass health care reform. If I was in congress I would be pushing for that behind closed doors.

As for Scott Brown, I wouldn't be so sure about the GOP getting rid of him. For one, he basically performed a miracle by winning that seat. For two, the Republicans have to realize that he represents their best chance for holding that seat in the long-term, because the Dems are going to throw everything they've got at it to get it back in the future.

The Right wing base of the Republican party is very energized right now, once the tea party movement realizes he scores worse than Ronald Reagan on the purity test they're not going to be to happy. He could get a serious primary challenger in 2012, which he could win with the moderate republicans behind him. But during the general election if that serious right wing primary challenger decides to run as a third party and split the republican vote he'll lose it. That's the unfortunate reality for Republicans right now, they have to take on crazy positions to keep their base together.

Lastly, and this is just a guess by me, but you're going to see a lot of Scott Brown-type candidates in the future. Brown represents a viable model for other New England Republicans: a fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate. New England is not as blue as we think we are, Republicans just haven't been running the right kind of candidates here. Scott Brown has shown them how to do it, and the RNC is definitely taking notes.

Maybe in RI, ME, and NH Those are the states that got hit pretty hard with the tea party movement. Hating the government and thinking it's out to kill your babies and your grand mother and anything remotely resembling progress is bad right now. Will that change? probably.

Edit: Forgot to add this: But right now the Rino's in the party are in trouble, this is the reason why we see known liberal republicans doing a complete 180. If anything Scott Brown has shown a Republican can win in a blue state if the candidate sucks.

 

[CRASHiC]

Next year is going to be a baaad year for the Dems considering the new house seats as determined by the census. I fear that what was once claimed to be the death of the republicans is now quickly becoming the death of the dems instead.

 

[Aesir]

Yay 1994 all over again.

 

[Riddle]

This isn't a major loss or even a very big problem as outlined before. My problem is the extreme partisanship. At this point the Republicans almost have to reject everything the Democrats propose on principle and vice-versa. Its a huge impediment to any sort of progress being made on anything at all.

Everyone is talking about how their all bipartisan and how they will try to make a fair bipartisan agreement but its all a lie. We almost need a huge majority for anything to get passed at all. Our nation is gridlocked by the egos of politicians.

 

[Aesir]

This isn't a major loss or even a very big problem as outlined before. My problem is the extreme partisanship. At this point the Republicans almost have to reject everything the Democrats propose on principle and vice-versa. Its a huge impediment to any sort of progress being made on anything at all.

Everyone is talking about how their all bipartisan and how they will try to make a fair bipartisan agreement but its all a lie. We almost need a huge majority for anything to get passed at all. Our nation is gridlocked by the egos of politicians.

The Democrats are acting bi-partisan, that's what's funny about all of this they invite the Republicans to come to table then they just don't show up so the Democrats just go ahead and run with it, than the Republicans say they're not being bi-partisan enough. In this political climate it's impossible to be bi-partisan because the minority party actually strengthens by keeping things the way they are. If they Economy doesn't improve it fuels the lunatic fringe of the party and makes them seem more legitimate. Generally speaking the Democrats are a lot better at being the minority because they know how to work with the other side, Republicans don't have that anymore.

They just need to get rid of the filibuster, it's completely absurd to say the Majority can't enact their programs when they were voted in. If the country really doesn't want that they can over throw the government next election, that's why we have re-elections.

 

[Riddle]

Right, our current legal system actually discourages cooperation and that needs to change. As Aesir said it is simply not in the best interests of the minority party to help the majority out.

While democrats are certainly better at being bipartisan then republicans are, they still have their problems, especially when in the minority. For example source.

I can't forsee this problem being solved however.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

(source)

George Washington had it right.