If you believe that the hc bill is the reason that Coakley is in such a close

[cali]

race, do you believe that all liberals/progressives in blue states who voted for it, are in trouble later this year? Seems kind of logical that if you believe the one you believe the other.

[itsrobert]

1. Yes, becasue no one likes this giveaway to the insurance companies

Left or right, the bill will not help blue dogs.

[Motown_Johnny]

2. partially, but it seems that this seat was taken for granted.

There must have been a better candidate.

[dkf]

3. Yes. The hcr bill with a mandate and no public option is political suicide.

That has been my opinion from the time the public option was killed.

[graywarrior]

4. If a Kennedy had run for the senate, it would have been all over

It's Coakley. She's hard to like. But she's all we have right now.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. There is a Kennedy running in that race. nt

[BzaDem]

5. No, because this is a special election but November is a general election.

The former has much lower turnout and is much more affected by enthusiasm. In addition, I don't think most candidates in November will not campaign until a week before the election and then be forced to go hard negative without first presenting a positive image.

[cali]

7. good points.

there are significant differences with a special election.

[mochajava666]

10. I think a special election is more like a mid term election

or primary than a general election, so I think the lack of enthusiasm for this HCR bill will be indicative of the problems for the dems in 2010. The base has to feel energized by this administration and the independents look for leadership. This HCR bill will inhibit pro democratic turnout in a traditionally low turnout election.

[Shrek]

6. MA might be a special case

Voters there already have some experience with health insurance mandates, and might be more inclined to register a vote based on that experience.

In other states the health care bill might be a less influential issue.

[Swede Atlanta]

8. Not necessarily

I think one of the reasons the MA race is so close is if there is a Republican upset, no health care bill will be passed and unless Obama can really turn this economy around and get it growing dynamically going into 2012, he will not be re-elected.

The Republicans know that the loss of this seat will kill the bill and so they are pumping money and resources into the state.

If Coakley wins and the health care reform (such as it is) passes, then the Democrats can campaign on the positive things in the bill. While I am very disappointed in the funding mechanism for this bill (i.e. taxes on so-called Cadillac plans) and a health insurance mandate without a public option except 50 individual state-run exchanges, it does contain a few good things including prohibiting pre-existing condition policies, elimination of maximums and prohibiting cancellation of a policy simply beacause someone gets sick.

The problem right now is all the American people, including those in Massachussetts, have seen are the antics of the reich wingers including the tea-baggers, the ineffective presentation of the reform by the Administration and leaders in Congress and the ugly side of the sausage-making process.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. I believe everyone is in trouble next year.

The problem with the HCR bill is that it galvanizes opposition but cannot galvanize support. Many hate it, few love it.

Many Dems will be re-elected, of course, but no Dem will be re-elected BECAUSE OF the HCR bill.

Some Dems will, however, lose because of it.

So I see it as a net negative, nationally.

All the blue dogs are going to lose. The most liberal dems are from liberal areas and will squeak by despite HCR more than because of it.

IMO.

Note that it could be a net negative even if 60% of the public supported it because of asymmetrical motivational ability. (Republicans ave won a lot of election on abortion in electorates that are generally pro-abortion because (minority) opposition is stronger than support as a driver of voting behavior.

[cali]

11. I largely agree- though I don't think all the blue dogs will lose

and I don't think most liberal dems in liberal areas will suffer any repercussions from supporting the HCR legislation. I'm quite certain you'll see Leahy voted in with his usual large margin, despite the fact that most Vermonters don't like the HCR legislation and support single payer.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. "All" is a tricky word but blue dogs will mostly lose, and disproportionately

It's like Republicans in New England getting wiped out despite being by far the most centrist Republicans.

Shift the nation a few points to the right and the races most affected are the close ones.

Leahy will do fine.

Nelson will lose. Lincoln will lose. Etc..

In the House, I expect a purge of centrist Dems primarily in the mid-west and south.

[TexasObserver]

12. The Democratic party is in trouble for not delivering what it promised.

We are in trouble for not delivering what we promised to win the 2008 elections, and by "we" I mean the president and the congressional leadership. We will lose seats in November of this year, and it will be due to the party leadership failing to deliver the health care promised. The public knows that this incredible pile of junk they're calling Health Care Reform is little more than an insurance relief bill. Wall street and the bankers got theirs. Now it's time for the health insurers to get theirs.

As to whether other Democrats are in trouble with the electorate, that remains to be seen. It's over nine months away. But if the elections were held today, the answer is YES, the party and its candidates for congress would suffer.

[Toots]

14. It isn't just the Health care Fiasco, it is giving huge corporations exactly what they want

instead of the American people. This is just another example of it as is the Huge Bonuses coming out to put the exclamation mark on Obama's and the Democrat's efforts. When Obama coined the phrase "Main Street not Wall Street" a lot of people actually thought he meant it.. Silly us.