What the election in Massachusetts really means?

[kentuck]

First of all, it was not a vote for the Republican Party, per se. It was a vote against the status quo. The people wanted change and they never got it. It was not a message to move left or right. It was a message to move.

The Party which is more intelligent and interprets it correctly will be the one to profit from the true meaning of the Massachusetts election.

It was not a vote against Obama and the Democrats per se and neither was it a vote for the Republicans per se. It was a vote against the status quo and a vote for needed change. Obama promised change but did not deliver - at least not in the issues that mattered to the voters.

The challenge for the Democrats is to prove to the independents and Democrats that have lost favor with the Party that they are the best choice to put the country on the right track. How do they do that? That is the question.

First of all, the people have to be able to compare the Parties and issues side by side. They cannot compare them separate from each other, thru the propaganda of the MSM. Obama has to bring the Republicans into the debate, some way or other. The Republicans do not want to take a stand on the issues. They want to stand pat as the Party of "NO". That must change. They must be forced to vote on several issues that are very popular with the people. They must show that they are willing to walk the talk. That is the challenge for the President and the Democratic Party. They must smoke out the Republicans and get them to take a stand and vote on the issues that are important to the people. Otherwise, they will continue to obstruct and to obfuscate thru the next election.

What should the Democrats do? They should do what the people want done. On healthcare, the people do not want to go bankrupt if they develop a life-threatening disease. They want portability if they are fired or move to another job. They want coverage if they have pre-existing conditions. They want prices lowered on their prescription drugs. There are many things that the vast majority of the American people, Democrats and Republicans, agree upon. These are what the Republican Party must be forced to take a stand upon.

The American people want regulations on Wall Street and the Big Banks that got us into this economic mess. Demand that the Republicans work with the Democrats to pass something. Bring them into the light. Let the people see the charade that is going on.

Finally, something must be done about creating jobs. Democrats and Republicans and Independents all across this nation have lost their jobs. They are in desperate straits or very near. Vote on something to help these people. Bring the Republicans into the debate. That is what the Democrats must do if they want to win back those voters they lost in Massachusetts and across this country.

[reformist]

1. FIRSTLY, something must be done about creating jobs.

Please put health care on the back burner. If Dems don't make creating jobs Job #1 this year, they are going to lose big.

[kentuck]

2. Healthcare is connected to job creation.

It is 16% of our nations economy.

[reformist]

6. I see your point.

I didn't mean to sound harsh, but the perception is that the dems have become obsessed with health care at the expense of everything else.

[kentuck]

7. And I see your point...

The healthcare plan as presented was a mess. It got worse as the year progressed. That was the Democrats fault. And the Republicans took advantage of it. They need to simplify it where people understand it and support it. They don't need to give up on it. They cannot afford to give up on it. They would pay a high political price if they did.

[dkf]

10. How does this bill help employers?

A good healthcare bill would take the burden off of employers and would help job growth. But there are no bills like that around.

[kentuck]

11. Ideally, that would be best for the people and for job creation...

You are correct. But if they can't get that, because it might be more controversial, they can still force the Republicans to vote for simple issues that will help the people and make them take a stand. It is a way to prove to people who is on their side. If we bring on Mitch McConnell on one channel and Nancy Pelosi on another channel and they give their partisan points and then the MSM media interprets them for their viewers, then we will continue to spin our wheels and lose traction.

[dkf]

13. Such a wasted opportunity. It could have been a healthcare jobs bill but it isn't.

It's so frustrating

[kentuck]

14. I agree.

And that's really what happened in the MA election.

[tonysam]

21. It doesn't put food on the table.

Jobs DO.

Job creation is vastly more important than everybody receiving health insurance.

[CTyankee]

23. Health care expansion would mean more jobs. We'd have to have more technicians,

more nurses, more P.A.s, more doctors. This could be a job creation bonanza...

[kentuck]

24. Paying less for premiums and prescriptions?

would not put food on the table? Why not?

[YvonneCa]

3. Welcome to DU. n/t

[treestar]

15. Why did they vote in a Republican?

He's going to say just let the market take care of it. Presumably.

[kentuck]

16. He never ran as a Republican...

He ran as a "change" agent and as an "independent"... That may change once the Republican Party waterboards him once he gets to Washington.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Look, they elected a Republican who was running with the backing of tea partiers...

and on Republican ideas. So, yes, it was a vote for the Republican party. Clearly, these people felt that the Republican party will do a better job. More than a vote for change, it was a vote out of fear. People are concerned for their jobs, homes, and livlihoods. So,they voted for the alternative to the group in power. That was a Republican and they voted for those ideas.

If these people evaluted things, they would have heard the message that Republicans do not believe that the government can ever create jobs. Only the private sector can create jobs. Out of fear, ignorance, or a hope for change the very clearly voted for Republican ideas and Republican solutions.

Of course, I don't think a majority of voters really think things through. Their vote was a short term feel good solution to a problem that they don't think Democrats are fixing. Like eight years under Bush, it will bite them in the ass.

What do you think of "Brown 2012."

Catchy, hunh!

[kentuck]

5. Look, 20% of Obama voters voted for Brown.

That was the difference in that election.

[pipi_k]

8. Actually, even though he's a Republican...

he mostly ran on "Independent" ideals.

Most of his campaign ads used the word "independent" somewhere in them. He appealed to the Independent voters.

He's not exactly Pro Choice or pro Gay Marriage, but he's said that those issues have already been legislated and he would not work against them.


I haven't personally talked with anyone who voted for him, but I have talked with people who have talked with Democrats who voted for him, and it's the same thing...

they essentially voted for change.

So they didn't so much vote for Republican as much as they voted for the change they didn't think they would get by voting Democrat.

[dkf]

9. Apparently it wasn't a vote based on the candidates either.

The top issue was the health care bill. The candidates themselves came last

[kentuck]

12. We must be careful with that assumption...

The national plan was more or less based on the Massachusetts plan, which is mostly popular with the Massachusetts voters. Many thought it would change the plan they presently have. The polls do not show that the people voted against healthcare reform alone. Just the plan that was presented.

[dkf]

19. Here is the poll. It asks specifically about the national bill and the importance of

It on the persons vote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=149233&mesg_id=149233

[jpak]

17. It means that Dems who stay home or vote for teabaggers are idiots

that is all

[kentuck]

18. Maybe they are not as stupid as we might think?

If they can get the Parties, or the Democratic Party, to change? Obviously, the status quo must change.

[jpak]

20. Two Words

Scott Brown

The status quo Ante Obama

yup

[Unrepentant Fenian]

22. NO, I believe it was Martha Coakley' s fault...

Had Ted Kennedy been running, he would have won by a landslide. So I don't see Brown's winning as a reflection on the party or Obama. But I think that Obama and the party have got to pay more attention to working families and the economy, or we will be in trouble come November.