To quote Coldplay, “Just because you’re losing doesn’t mean you’ve lost.” Perhaps the Dems should “Wait until the firing stops”. Now I’d rather see both versions of this boondoggle go down. But all is not lost yet if you are in favor of the boondoggle.
And yes, I gave the Dema advise from a Coldplay song. But “Lost!” is a good song for them to think about. Everyone needs to calm down, wait for th dust to clear, and then make their plans.
As someone pointed out elsewhere, this is still a bigger majority than Bush held at any point during his terms. And he seemed to do okay (except that whole Social Security thing) getting his stuff passed.
And yes, I know, Republicans don’t have anything equivalent to Blue Dogs in their caucus, etc, etc. My only point is 59 is still more than 41 and fillibustering is not the end of the world and….well, you get the idea.
ceiliazul
When you play video games and you get used to using cheat codes, it’s hard to go back to playing the right way. Pelosi is addicted to the no-clipping mode.
Pelosi out in 2010.
Jazz
I think Brown’s election bodes more poorly for Democrats than the temporary, 24-hour frenzy would make it seem. This is because Brown’s win exploits a serious Democratic weakness that the party has embraced for 30 years, trading the weakness for strength elsewhere.
It was the Clintons, and probably specifically Hillary, who determined that Democrats could court all manner of independents and persuadable conservatives with commonsense, moderate policies that stabbed the main Democratic constituency (big labor) in the back, but to which labor couldn’t really complain. The classic early example was teacher testing in Arkansas when Clinton returned to the governship. Who wouldn’t want better teachers? What’s your beef, union guy?
Interestingly, Hillary was probably born to cobble together such unnatural alliances, from her days as an early teen canvassing for Nixon votes on Chicago’s South Side (which votes were decisively outweighed by the Kennedy votes that Daley found in the cemetaries). Its true that Hillary has had spectacular failures in her scheming – Health Care 1993, Obama 2008 – but sometimes failiing spectacularly is more a sign of thinking too big than acting too small, as is probably the case for Hillary.
If the modern Democratic strategy is taking the base for granted to woo independents and moderate conservatives, you need some pretty smooth operators to hold that together. No disrespect to Mrs. Obama, but she’s pretty obviously a much less useful resource to her husband after the Brown snub than Hillary would have been to WJC after the Gingrich 1994 snub.
Oh, and the Republicans…if you’re competing against a party that has largely taken its base for granted in order to woo the moderates and independents, and your opponent’s strategists aren’t as top-notch as the ones who came before, what a great idea to run a candidate who actually appeals to the cultural sensibilities of your opponent’s ignored base.
Enter Scott Brown. If this is the template for the 21st century Republican candidate, the Dems could be in serious trouble, unless they have some other Hillary-types hanging in the wings to scheme in response. It would seem that they don’t have the firepower to fight back. But we’ll see.
Jazz
In the spirit of shameless self-promotion, Huffington Post just referenceda report that Coakley lost due to undermobilized union voters.
The real eye-opener in the linked piece:
“Coakley ultimately lost the labor vote to Scott Brown by a margin of 49 percent to 46 percent, according to the AFL-CIO’s data.”
Democrats can definitely win elections without cuddling up to labor, see Clinton, Bill. But it takes an awful lot more cleverness for a Democrat to win without labor than to win with it.
Alasdair
Jazz – at the risk of bubble-bursting, how did the raw numbers of the “labor vote” during Tuesday’s election compare with the raw number for Massachusetts during the November, 2008, Presidential Election …
I would bet pocket cash that turnout in the “labor vote” was similar and possibly higher on Tuesday … I could be worng about that, understood …
My own suspicion is that the “labor vote” on Tuesday was better informed by sources other than the DNC and the AFL-CIO – and that led to Tuesday’s most welcome result !
It does the heart good to see yet another Scott prospering … (eevn if he has an embarassing family name) …
To quote Coldplay, “Just because you’re losing doesn’t mean you’ve lost.” Perhaps the Dems should “Wait until the firing stops”. Now I’d rather see both versions of this boondoggle go down. But all is not lost yet if you are in favor of the boondoggle.
And yes, I gave the Dema advise from a Coldplay song. But “Lost!” is a good song for them to think about. Everyone needs to calm down, wait for th dust to clear, and then make their plans.
As someone pointed out elsewhere, this is still a bigger majority than Bush held at any point during his terms. And he seemed to do okay (except that whole Social Security thing) getting his stuff passed.
And yes, I know, Republicans don’t have anything equivalent to Blue Dogs in their caucus, etc, etc. My only point is 59 is still more than 41 and fillibustering is not the end of the world and….well, you get the idea.
When you play video games and you get used to using cheat codes, it’s hard to go back to playing the right way. Pelosi is addicted to the no-clipping mode.
Pelosi out in 2010.
I think Brown’s election bodes more poorly for Democrats than the temporary, 24-hour frenzy would make it seem. This is because Brown’s win exploits a serious Democratic weakness that the party has embraced for 30 years, trading the weakness for strength elsewhere.
It was the Clintons, and probably specifically Hillary, who determined that Democrats could court all manner of independents and persuadable conservatives with commonsense, moderate policies that stabbed the main Democratic constituency (big labor) in the back, but to which labor couldn’t really complain. The classic early example was teacher testing in Arkansas when Clinton returned to the governship. Who wouldn’t want better teachers? What’s your beef, union guy?
Interestingly, Hillary was probably born to cobble together such unnatural alliances, from her days as an early teen canvassing for Nixon votes on Chicago’s South Side (which votes were decisively outweighed by the Kennedy votes that Daley found in the cemetaries). Its true that Hillary has had spectacular failures in her scheming – Health Care 1993, Obama 2008 – but sometimes failiing spectacularly is more a sign of thinking too big than acting too small, as is probably the case for Hillary.
If the modern Democratic strategy is taking the base for granted to woo independents and moderate conservatives, you need some pretty smooth operators to hold that together. No disrespect to Mrs. Obama, but she’s pretty obviously a much less useful resource to her husband after the Brown snub than Hillary would have been to WJC after the Gingrich 1994 snub.
Oh, and the Republicans…if you’re competing against a party that has largely taken its base for granted in order to woo the moderates and independents, and your opponent’s strategists aren’t as top-notch as the ones who came before, what a great idea to run a candidate who actually appeals to the cultural sensibilities of your opponent’s ignored base.
Enter Scott Brown. If this is the template for the 21st century Republican candidate, the Dems could be in serious trouble, unless they have some other Hillary-types hanging in the wings to scheme in response. It would seem that they don’t have the firepower to fight back. But we’ll see.
In the spirit of shameless self-promotion, Huffington Post just referenceda report that Coakley lost due to undermobilized union voters.
The real eye-opener in the linked piece:
“Coakley ultimately lost the labor vote to Scott Brown by a margin of 49 percent to 46 percent, according to the AFL-CIO’s data.”
Democrats can definitely win elections without cuddling up to labor, see Clinton, Bill. But it takes an awful lot more cleverness for a Democrat to win without labor than to win with it.
Jazz – at the risk of bubble-bursting, how did the raw numbers of the “labor vote” during Tuesday’s election compare with the raw number for Massachusetts during the November, 2008, Presidential Election …
I would bet pocket cash that turnout in the “labor vote” was similar and possibly higher on Tuesday … I could be worng about that, understood …
My own suspicion is that the “labor vote” on Tuesday was better informed by sources other than the DNC and the AFL-CIO – and that led to Tuesday’s most welcome result !
It does the heart good to see yet another Scott prospering … (eevn if he has an embarassing family name) …