Salon: Now what? By Mike Madden

[Douglas Carpenter]

Democrats search for solutions after Republican Scott Brown wins the Massachusetts Senate race

link: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/01/19/democrats/index.html

WASHINGTON -- Pick any overwrought reaction to Scott Brown's defeat of Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate special election Tuesday night, and chances are, some part of the Democratic establishment has already had it.

The vote means moderates "aren't buying" what President Obama and Democrats are trying to pitch them? Check, courtesy of Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh. The vote means healthcare reform is dead? Check, thanks to Rep. Anthony Weiner. The vote means Democrats should try to be more like Republicans (and maybe turn into Republicans)? Yup, Joe Lieberman had that one covered, refusing to rule out a switch to the GOP in an interview on Fox News. The vote means Coakley is just a loser? Check, courtesy of, well, just about every Democrat in Washington.

snip: "Top Democratic officials say they've realized -- albeit belatedly -- that Brown won by channeling the populist anger that helped Democrats win independent voters in 2006 and 2008, and that's killing them with the same voters as the governing party now. "We obviously have to be more aggressive in defining the differences between us and them," one senior Democrat said. Senate campaign aides in Washington are undertaking a "forensic examination" of all their candidates around the country, looking at whether they're trying to talk to independent voters. Look for more anti-Wall Street rhetoric -- like the attacks on Brown that came too late in Coakley's campaign -- from the White House on down. For all the Republican joy these days, Democrats say they think they can still paint the GOP as the party that sides with financial fat cats instead of regular people; most Republicans, for instance, came out against Obama's call for a fee on banks to recoup federal aid they've gotten, and every House Republican voted against new financial regulations that chamber passed last month.

After all, focusing on creating jobs and helping the rest of the economy recover as quickly as Wall Street has is exactly the kind of policy that makes for good politics. One senior Democratic strategist, closely allied with the White House, says the party needs to deliver something tangible for voters, to have something to show for their control of government . "You need to listen to voters," the strategist said. "There's a lot of anger out there. They want to see action, they want people in Washington to address their concerns." It's shocking, in retrospect, that it took the loss of a seat Democrats had held since 1952 for the party to realize that

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/01/19/democrats/index.html

[Enrique]

1. "look for more anti-Wall Street rhetoric"

and if you don't back it up, then look for people to get even more disgusted with you.

[ibegurpard]

2. I really think this is the key lesson from this:

"One senior Democratic strategist, closely allied with the White House, says the party needs to deliver something tangible for voters, to have something to show for their control of government . "You need to listen to voters," the strategist said. "There's a lot of anger out there. They want to see action, they want people in Washington to address their concerns." It's shocking, in retrospect, that it took the loss of a seat Democrats had held since 1952 for the party to realize that."

yes, a lot of other factors were at play but this was the part that current politics on the national level played in this local race I think.
I'm just a bit afraid of what tangible result they think we're looking for...
Why NOT take the bailout money and use it to employ people to rebuild our roads and bridges? Why AREN'T we talking about solutions like this?

[Scurrilous]

3. K & R

:thumbsup:

[liskddksil]

4. This setback might just be what we needed to prevent an utter disaster in 2010

[BP2]

5. That's like saying we needed to lose the playoff to come back stronger for next year's

Superbowl. I've heard that so many times in the last 20 years I could barf :puke:

We're more vunerable now than we were a year ago. We are now FORCED to compromise with the fucking Pukes
in the Senate to move anything forward. We only had to compromise with our own party just 24 hours ago.

Sorry. Winning inspires winning.

Anything else is an excuse for failure.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

8. Maybe the real solution is stay home November. If we let the Senate go totally republican...

who can the right blame, who can they say really did this to us. It may after 2 years give us a genuine liberal swing and finally get the job done. Except turn up for Weiner, Grayson, and Kucinich. One person once said it has to hit rock bottom for people to get it, it's one idea. I like President Obama but this is just a horrendous mess and not enough people can see just how messy it is s maybe we have to rub their faces in it for them to get it. It's just I don't see how we get back to power unless we accelerate their return. No-one has to listen to this I'm just feeling a little anarchist tonight.

I mean come on everyone should know Replicans are evil incarnate, but no they don't so I think let's just shove it right up in their face, so they can't hide form it. The end game f GOP doesn't even benefit the super rich as they are only at the top held up by the bottom, so the way to send them the message is to send them all the Republicans they could ever dream of. I'm tired of trying to make folks understand let the natural law of karma, which means lesson do it's thing. Then we can have real government, got to break it, to fix it. From dog catcher all the way to Congressional Senate, let them have it all let them learn what their policy really means for themselves and the collective. Greedy is a deadl sin, they don't quite understand how deadly it is it's time for the lesson to begin.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

16. I reconsider this idea, it's just we have such an big struggle now with no jobs bill I don't know..

what we do next.

[falcon97]

6. Fine, there's populist anger.

But it looks like the voters have turrets. How can the Democratic party have been expected to fix everything that was upside down in one year's time?!? I'm angry at the way health care has progressed too...but I'm not going to turn to the people who put us in this fix to get us out of it.

[BP2]

7. Well said. Is there an Option C? Status quo and status quo-lite doesn't seem to be the answer. We

were made promises last year that aren't being kept. That angers me, a lot!

The Pukes are just saying No, sticking their hands in their pockets and reaping the rewards of that populist anger.

Some one-year periods are more important than others. We've blown an opportunity that we likely won't see
for another 20 years.

I've been waiting since 1992. I'd rather not be waiting until the late-2020's to see it come around again.

[falcon97]

12. I wish I could answer that.

Up is down and down is up right now.

Are things really as bad as they were 365 days ago? I had sensed a broad, if uneasy, optimisim before the last week. Now, I just dunno....

[paulsby]

15. not that the stock market is a proxy but...

let's remember all the whinging (justified) about the damage to 401k's etc. when the dow was sub 7,000.

it's now in high 10,000's which means solid growth in retirement funds for many many people

and for those who did the right thing and kept DCA'ing, it's even better.

[girl gone mad]

9. Oh wtf..

we don't need any more populist rhetoric and ersatz reform. We need to figure out a way to clone FDR.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

10. Yeah, I'm getting alergic to the word 'populist' too. Yeah in their mind popular to ba an a-hole.

[Justitia]

13. or reanimate LBJ. -eom

[Smashcut]

11. "We obviously have to be more aggressive in defining the differences between us and them"

No you obviously have to be more aggressive in BEING different from them!

Fucking idiots!

:argh:

[OneBlueSky]

14. "they think they can still paint the GOP as the party that sides with financial fat cats" . . .

after the way Obama has caved to banking interests and insurance interests, I think any attempt to draw this "distinction" will draw nothing but laughs . . .