Hey, there! Log in / Register
If Scott Brown Wins
By david_yamada on Thu, 01/14/2010 - 8:51am
If Scott Brown manages to pull off a stunning upset on Tuesday, what will be the ramifications?
1. Galvanize the GOP Nationally -- A Brown win would galvanize the GOP nationally. The symbolic value of a conservative Republican taking the seat held for decades by arch enemy Ted Kennedy in a historically Democratic state would be earth shattering. It would open the conservative fundraising spigots and pump steroids into the GOP base less than two years after it was on the ropes in the wake of the 2008 election.
2. Democratic Policy Initiatives Instantly at Risk -- Health care reform isn't the only policy initiative that instantly would be at grave risk. Judicial and presidential appointments requiring Senate confirmation, not to mention reforms in environmental, financial, and labor policy, also would be on the chopping block.
3. 2010 Midterm Elections -- Republican prospects in dozens of seats in close House and Senate races across the country suddenly would be vastly improved. "If Scott Brown can win in Massachusetts, then why can't Joe the Plumber win in Iowa/Florida/Oregon/California?"
4. Loss of Bay State Influence in Washington -- A first-term, conservative Republican senator will not have much clout in Washington at a time when the White House and both houses of Congress are held by Democrats. His ability to bring home funding and programs will be very, very limited.
In sum, a Brown victory would buoy the Republicans nationally, while substracting clout from the Massachusetts congressional delegation.
Though we cannot discount gender as an everpresent factor when it comes to breaking glass (or opaque) ceilings in Massachusetts politics, the failings of the Coakley campaign are largely responsible for this unfolding scenario. That said, we liberals who have been critical of the Democratic nominee simply have to get over it. The stakes go well beyond the qualities of an individual candidacy.
My prognostication? Scott Brown may have peaked a week too early. His surge in the polls came in time for the Democrats to sound the alarm bells to rescue this campaign and to get their voters to the polls.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Give em Hell
Which is why I'm grudgingly voting for Coakley.
This is exactly why I thought she shouldn't have been voted in during the primary. Ma Dems really need to stop voting in boring, dull, uninspiring establishment candidates. The rest of the commonwealth isn’t too hot for her, and she rain the worst campaign I’ve seen in a few years.
When the people of the commonwealth look at the seat and compare Teddy and her, I think you can easily see why they just don’t care or are looking around at the other options. One inspired, the other assumed she’d walk right in and that it was a easy promotion.
If we lose this, the blame fall squarly on Coakley for cake walking it, and the Ma Dem party for being so clueless.
Ahem
This really would have been better off as a blog entry.
Which ...
I might have put on the front page anyway :-).
Exactly
Yes, you might have. I might have linked it to a story. Anyone might have. But I sort of like the general vibe we've had here where everyone isn't proselytizing with a different front page story for the same/similar news items.
I like the dichotomy of "news articles" and "blog entries". "News article" content is a summary of some event or viewpoint found on news/blog websites. "Blog entry" content is a self-published personal opinion just as one of the aforementioned viewpoints on some other site would have been. Thus, just because you want to publish a viewpoint on UHub, it doesn't automatically get front-page level attention. It would require you, Adam, to elevate it to the front page directly or someone else to think it worth summarizing and linking to a front page "news article".
The biggest reason I like this, as it has basically been done previously, is that it requires 2 people to feel it's worth mentioning to the front page instead of one, whereas actual news being sent by 1 person to the front page (with your discretion to add or undo it from the front page) is more than likely fine given that it's news and not just a view.
Or maybe I'm making too much of it. It wouldn't be a first.
I disagree, it is an open
I disagree, it is an open discussion of a political subject that is based in Massachusetts. While it has an obvious bias it does lay out the prospect of one of the candidates beating the other and leaves an open door for other people who disagree to respond. Certain contributors overdid it when Capuano was running with the pro Capuano posts but this is different
I tried not to be heavy handed
Kaz, in view of my previous comments about the Senate race on this blog, it would've been disingenuous of me to frame this post as being from a completely detached observer. But I do think my main points accurately summarize the impact of a Brown upset, regardless of what a reader's political leanings happen to be. No doubt there are supporters of Scott Brown who would be delighted to see these developments unfold.
Wasn't my concern
See above. I'm more interested in maintaining the difference between "news" and "opinion" on the front page. This was an opinion piece. In my mind, that's best left as a blog which may or may not be worth front-paging for discussion. We're always close to our own views, so best to let a second person determine its "worthiness" for the front page (IMHO).
I mean, in all fairness, the door is now open for "Why it's great if Brown wins" and "You should vote for Kennedy because" front page posts now. Then, what if I have other reasons I think it's best if Coakley wins, should I have to add them in comment to your post or do I get my own nuanced approach to another front page piece?
okay Kaz, I hear your point...
...and in the meantime, folks have posted some thoughtful comments agreeing and disagreeing with my entry. I'd like to think it made a contribution to the dialogue here, but if it turns out I unintentionally opened the door for a bunch of front page opinion posts that clutter up UH, Adam will say so and I'll certainly play by his rules. 'Nuff said I think.
And this is a problem, why?
Yeah, like the last umpteen years of one-party rule in this state is a model for the rest of the country.
Wake up, sheeple!
Wide awake
Compared to many other states - say, California or New Jersey - Massachusetts is very well run.
One of the reasons for this is that we don't fall as often for flim-flam men like Scott Brown as other states do.
He's a classic glad-hander -- roaming around the bars trying to get drunks riled up about a "beer tax." It's a good thing there aren't enough drunks in Massachusetts to elect him.
Martha Coakley may be as exciting as a bowl of plain oatmeal, but she does her job. And as a good Yankee, I find oatmeal to be both frugal and filling.
Meh
Martha Coakley may be as exciting as a bowl of plain oatmeal, but she does her job.
"Her job" wasn't to pretend guerrilla marketing ads were attempting to be pretend bombs, etc., etc. She's not exciting, but that's not why I'm disappointed in her as the Democrats' choice. She really comes off as the "Friends of Ted Kennedy"'s pick, carrying all of his former relationships and lobbyists. She stirred up this aura of "finally having a woman Senator from MA". She carried a name known statewide and coasted to the finish line. I disagree with a lot of the ways she's "done her job" and I don't really like the way she's campaigned either.
Still, better to be "meh" in my book than "ew". Scott Brown is "ew".
also a huge win for the Tea Party
The Tea Party leaders have endorsed Brown and are saying that him winning will be a win for them. A Tea Party leader said on the radio yesterday if the ballot box doesn't work to get he changes they want, then they will go to the bullet box!
http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/01/tea-party-poli...
Brown has seemed only too happy to take money and endorsements from this group. IS he too afraid to denounce them?
Tea Party vs. Tea Partay
The Tea Party people are about as credible as the Tea Partay people. The key difference is that many of the former have the mentality of the militia people in Idaho.
A preemptive attempt to diffuse...
Before you go nuts, I am aware that there is militia activity in lots of places around the country. I have nothing against Idaho (damned fine skiing, I hear) and mentioned it only because there was a case involving a violent militia from there which I remembered.
I'm seeing more upsides than down
I thought the debate was pathetic, and wish I could vote for Joe Kennedy out of all of them because he was the only one really talking any sense, but avoiding the horrendously stupid and wholly unsustainable national healthcare plan (largely modeled after the most expensive and largely ineffective rules in the nation - that of MA) is far more valuable than any risk at "galvanizing" the GOP which has pretty much shunned Brown.
What does he owe them? Little to nothing. I do not expect him to be a rank and file GOP idiot, and I have the hope he'll help address the real issues facing this country - government size and spending. The private sector (aka: your money) has shrunk from ~75% of GDP around the 1950s to 55% today while the federal and state governments have exploded and horrendous cronyism in regard to things like pensions for government employees which are strangling state budgets.
Fixing spending is the real reform. Creating a true market for healthcare is reform, not mandates. The Obamacare plan (and Coakley) are completely supported by all the healthcare companies because while they can grudgingly say they don't like it, it is just another government run fleecing of the citizenship for the benefit of companies who don't have to compete. There are much simpler reforms (some examples) that can be attempted before a national plan - such as opening up the market to compete across state lines.
Every other market benefits from competition, leading to higher quality and lower prices. Healthcare would be the same if it wasn't for government interference driving up the cost and protecting a limited amount of companies from competing just like the telecom/cable companies everyone hates.
Before voting to pile on another mountain of debt to the future, think about the fact that this is big government business as usual stealing from the people under the guise of helping "the needy" - most of who will now be levied with a large penalty for still not buying the healthcare they are required because the government is inevitably going to be the cause of exploding costs which leads to people not affording things anyway.
Again, the GOP shunned brown, how is this going to boost them? Additionally, believe it or not - one party rule doesn't work. Checks and Balances in government exist for a reason. If it results in less funding so be it, maybe the state will start being fiscally responsible, and maybe instead of "losing" funding we can try to shrink government spending at the core so we have to stop selling our debt out to countries like China (see latest issue with Google)
Day 1 of Econ 101
Incomplete Economies, Public Goods, Free Riders, Problems of Collective Action. So, no, not EVERY market benefits from competition. Health Care, as we've found out from years of pretending otherwise, probably DOESN'T benefit from competition. After all, we're trying to keep people healthy, not sell used cars.
Not only that, but markets
Not only that, but markets are great when the goal is wealth and prosperity. Any other positives, such as efficiency and lower costs are byproducts.
Is healthcare really something that should be left up to the almighty dollar and a men in business suits that only answers to shareholders and his cronies?
There is something to be gained from using market techniques, but a fully competitive market in healthcare is not only impossible, but problematic, since the goal of such a market wouldn't be to make sick people better.
Healthcare, Defense, Infrastructure. Some things are best left to the government.
What's wrong with two parties?
I'm voting for Brown. This isn't a life term; it is an interrim election. Personally, I'm frustrated by the current Congress. We were promised complete transparency on healthcare debates and we've been given back room deals where Nebraska is the winner and we are left paying for their gains. All Martha is going to do is march in lockstep with Kerry. She's going to be out as soon as a valid Democrat enters the next primary. Lets hope she isn't in for life!
I'm wondering if you haven't
I'm wondering if you haven't een paying attention for the last 234 years.
Point #4 is way off
Your point #4, I believe, is way off. Should Brown win office, his stature will be larger than life. His name is already nationally known, which is not true of most US Senators. The fact that he overcame the odds that he did will assure him influence in Washington. The national Republican party, which had earlier written him off and refused to give him and money, is already trying to cozy up to Brown hoping that some of his mojo rubs off on them. Believe me, the national Republicans will owe Brown quite a bit should he win, and he owes them nothing. And if the Senate turns Republican in November, which it likely will, then Massachusetts not only won't be locked out in the Senate, but they'll have the dragon slayer as their Senator on the inside.
If you're worried about influence, don't be. That's not a reason to not support Brown.
Speaking of "way off"
And if the Senate turns Republican in November, which it likely will...
That's a supposition that does not seem to have a foundation in any polling or statistics that Nate Silver over at 538.com has been looking at for the past 6 months.
just another reason to vote
just another reason to vote Democratic.
I like my leaders, and their supporters, to be living in the real world. You know, the one with empirical facts, and rational discussions.
Why Coakley's in trouble
The liberals in Mass (and on this page) have missed the point. The moderates in the state are not voting for Brown to go to Washington and be an agent of obstruction. We see him as a potential agent of negotiation and change. We are not against health care reform, we are just against THIS health care reform. We are not against carbon reductions, but cap and trade is simply too onerous. We are not against financial regulatory reform, but we need reasonable reform that a former AG who views every banker as a crook will never deliver (I love the Goldman stuff - total bullcrap - they paid her $10 million in nuisance money to go away because they did nothing illegal and most of the other $50 million she got in mortgage reductions will probably never arrive - total publicity stunt).
If Brown goes to Washington simply to get in the way - his career will be very short. However, if he uses his position to represent the far left of the Republican party which often aligns with the far right of the Democratic party (generally socially liberal and fiscally conservative) - then he could be enormously successful. No party should have carte blanche - I'm not a fan of gridlock and hopefully Brown will realize that many/most of his voters are not sending him to Washington to be a champion of the status quo.
Coakley will probably still win - but hopefully it will be close enough to scare the hubris out of this congress. If she doesn't, it will be interesting to see which Brown shows in DC - I'm rooting for the guy who can rely on the support of Mass moderates to ignore the national GOP and do the right thing. He doesn't need the GOP to get elected in Mass - but he does need us.
I will say - it is interesting to see the Dems in the state resorting to Republican smear and fear tactics to get their candidate elected. If a Republican did half the stuff Coakley is pulling the Globe would crucify him/her.
Yikes, Well, seeing how Brown
Yikes,
Well, seeing how Brown has explicitly stated his platform of obstructionism, with no comments on what he’s for or how he’ll do it, you're kind of up a creek without a paddle huh?
The simple fact is, if Brown is elected to office you can kiss any progressive legislature goodbye. The only bills to get through congress will be budget and defense spending bills, and small things put together to benefit constituents. None of the big problems will be tackled.
One only needs to look toward Olympia Snow, or Lieberman. Who ingle handedly brought down the public option which was supported overwhelmingly by their constituents.
The GOP has a big problem, and Brown knows that. He’ll be voting in solidarity with them, gumming up congress and helping with their platform of “Stall and hope things get worse”.
That’s not government, it’s shameful politics and it has consequences on real people.
"We are not against health
"We are not against health care reform, we are just against THIS health care reform"
Sure, this is what the republicans have been saying since Obama was elected. They are all for health care reform, but they only had 10 years in power (6 with Bush) to do so. And what did they do? Expanded medicare without funding it. That's it.
So how much longer did they need to get the health reform done? This package, which Brown is against, is remarkably similar to the Romneycare we have in MA, which Brown favors.
What does he believe in, specifically? Hes just another rank and file right winger, and their mantra is NO to everything, don't let anything pass, because they don't want Obama to be able to pass anything. Even if its worse for the country, stalling government for 2+ more years, screaming no is in their political interest, and Brown seems only too happy to do Karl Rove's bidding.
Oh, and in the case that
Oh, and in the case that you're not a Fark-indepedent, I think you should do some research on what Brown's agenda will realy look like. He's no moderate, free thinking Republican:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/01/...
Oh, and more info for our
Oh, and more info for our indepedent minded poster above:
If you think Brown is anything but a hollow, rubber stamp Republican; you're being played for a fool.
and if he does that...
his career will be very short and we'll send a Dem or less likely, different Republican to DC. Coakley doesn't have a legislative record to run on - but based on what I've seen and heard the last thing anyone would call her is politically courageous, but nice to hear more fear mongering from the Coakley campaign - which is why even if I weren't voting for Brown my vote would go to Kennedy (who in my opinion was the most impressive of the three).
I'm not sure if this is Scott
I'm not sure if this is Scott Brown's time, but I personally know a lot more conservatives than liberals, and I'm a Somerville yuppie. Times could be changing as the youth of MA continues to be disillusioned by our dysfunctional MA government.
Yuppie students around here
Yuppie students around here tend to lean conservative, since mommy and daddies little snowflake get everything they wanted and work soooo hard for it. I've seen it with my friends as well. The most spoiled of them are usually the most disillusioned about reality and the effect of government and taxes on their lives.
Blue Mass. Group hires pollster
Finds Coakley leading.
Is it possible to have this discussion...
With saying something, anything positive about Coakley? If not, this my friends is why I'm voting for Brown. Her role in ignoring the Mayor's possibly illegal email problems until after his election sealed the deal for me. She hasn't even bothered to campaign and all her ads on tv right now are paid for by other sources, NOT her. She is not worthy to hold Ted's seat.
Frankly, karenz;
Imho, neither Scott Brown or Martha Coakley are fit to hold Ted Kennedy's seat.
i agree
but a vote for someone other than brown is a vote for brown.
Ugh!
That means either voting for the "lesser of two evils", as usual, and, if Brown does get in and the Bay State goes Republican, I won't be able to do what I did at the polls during the last POTUS Election; do a write-in vote of my personal choice that revolves around who I believe(d) is/ was the most competent for the job of POTUS, and why. I'm sick and tired of having to vote for the lesser of two evils, whether I can stand them or not.
Its time.
I think you need a new crystal ball.