After Republicans picked up seats in the 2002 election, President Bush told his people not to gloat about things. Yesterday was just one election, but can we gloat now?
It’s not like our friends on the left didn’t have some warning that maybe, just maybe, the Democratic nominee would lose yesterday’s special election in Massachusetts. They had some time to consider what might happen, and compose themselves like civilized human beings. Cassy Fiano looked at some of their reactions:
Today we saw an epic upset. We saw a Massachusetts miracle. Scott Brown, a relatively unknown moderate Republican, took on Martha Coakley and the Democrat establishment, and won. Scott Brown won with almost no help from the national GOP. Martha Coakley lost with the Democratic Party behind her all the way, with even Barack Obama campaigning for her.
It wasn’t enough, and Scott Brown will be the next senator of Massachusetts. Martha Coakley thought it was the Ted Kennedy seat, that it belonged to the Democrats and to her. Scott Brown believed it was the people’s seat, and the people chose him instead of yet another big spending, politics-as-usual, corrupt Democratic politician. It didn’t help Coakley that she ran the worst campaign in I don’t even know how long, either.
This has changed everything. It will rock Democrats to their very core.
Just how shaken are they, though? I decided to do a little round up of the liberal reaction to Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts, and… well, it ain’t pretty.
First up, even film critic Roger Ebert, who has nothing to do with politics whatsoever, decided to make a run for the “Best Sore Loser” award. Michelle has the screencap:
Next, I checked the comments over at the Huffington Post. Needless to say, they weren’t too happy either.
- kellym33: Yay! The party of teabags and Michael Steele and Sarah Palin wins Ted Kennedy’s seat. Mass voted in someone who’s only platform is to be sure to say no along with the rest of the repubs. I didn’t really think it possible to dumb down such a large population of a pretty enlightened state, guess I was wrong.
- oneputtsteven: To all the libs who stayed home in protest. Now you’ve done it. It’s going to be like the scene in Ghostbusters when all the demons and ghosts get released except all the damage will be REAL and it WON”T be funny.
- dollbaby: Make no doubt that this is the gist of what happenend today: This guy was funded by the tea party lobbtist and republicans (secretly). This was a big money play to shut down healthcare and the democratic agenda by insurance companies and corporate America.
Much more at the link! Hat tip to Donald Douglas.
Now, I didn’t quote all that much from Miss Fiano’s original. She started with the Huffington Post comments, and the Huffington Post moderates its comments to keep profane stuff out. But she then continued with selected comments from the Democratic Underground and the Lost Kos. Needless to say, the most commonly used word begins with an “f.”
But, you know, this was one, just one, election. We evil reich-wing Republicans certainly hope that it’s a harbinger of things to come, but we have 9½ months until the November general elections, and a lot can happen in that time.
I was certainly disappointed when Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, and the Democrats made such substantial gains in Congress. But that was the result of a free and fair election, where the public had their say. That I didn’t want Mr Obama to become President didn’t change the fact that he won, and there was no sense in acting like a jerk about it.
One blog Miss Fiano didn’t cover was Pandagon, home of our good friend Amanda Marcotte. Amanda — normally I prefer the honorific, but she doesn’t like for me to use it in regard to her — decided that it would be better to take some cool-down time before writing and waited until this morning:
I don’t really think most American voters, Republican or Democratic, are stupid. Most vote their resentments or their hopes (Rs the former and Ds the latter, mostly), or their financial interests (tax cuts or social spending). But those people are pretty consistent voters. It’s the people who can swing an election that are dumb as bricks, and the Coakley campaign is a perfect example of this—it’s upsetting that you’re going to lose votes because of sports team affiliations, saying arrogant but kind of meaningless things, and other pointless mishaps. It’s frustrating that enough people to swing an election are motivated more by dumbfuck things like that rather than passing health care reform. But you know, Republicans and the good Democratic politicians are willing to sweep those votes up, and Coakley wasn’t, and the results were to be expected from that angle.
It ought to be noted here that the shift in the polls from Mrs Coakley to Mr Brown came before “sports team affiliations” became a problem. Attorney General Coakley started to foul up and say stupid things, like calling Boston Red Sox hero Curt Schilling a Yankee fan (!), when the race got tight; the race didn’t get tight because she said stupid things. The stupid statements she made simply cemented her status as losing. And while Amanda doesn’t believe that such things ought to have much part of a political decision, they tell the voters something about the candidate’s ability to perform under pressure.
No gloat, but to echo what has been heard here since Nov, 08, We won, deal with it.
Reading a few of the MSNBC website reports, I get the feeling that some in Congress understand it, but it looks like BO, Axelrod, Gibbs, and Pelosi are in denial. It’s not that Brown won, it’s what the polls have been saying about this Congress, and BO’s Progressive Agenda, We Don’t Want It. And You have misinterpreted last year’s election. It’s all about run away spending and taxing by both parties. And to add BO’s Far Left Agenda to the message. The people don’t want the spending or the Socialism from BOTH SIDES.
Unfortunately, I don’t know what Brown actually believes in. If he turns out to be a Bush liberal what good has been done? As you guys know, I don’t care about party; I care about the persons philosophy. If Brown turns out to be a Constitutionalist, Hurray! But if he turns out to be another big government/big business cabal communist, what then? What happens to us guys in the middle who want to choose our own destiny rather that have someone else’s forced upon us?
I think Health Insurance reform is a great idea. I don’t think a government take over of Health Care is worth a spit. I think a clean environment is a given. I don’t think we need to destroy our economy to have one. I think energy independence is a great goal. I also think nuclear power and domestic drilling are part of that goal.
If Brown becomes one of the status quo of Congress, we could well be screwed. Recent history has shown me that the difference between D’s and R’s is about the same as the weight of a raisin and a peanut.
I agree with much of what you say, John, but let me switch and add my two cents about yesterday’s election result in MA.
The shift in the vote of independents is what won the election for Brown, therefore, I don’t agree with Amanda’s analysis. These are the same independents who voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Their message has been sent. If the Dems are smart, (I think they will be.), they can react to this obvious anger about our unresolved problems, which will then bring these voters right back to a progressive agenda.
Dems are being punished for not quickly solving the problems they inherited, job losses, mortgage foreclosures, large national debt, frozen loans, all these of epic proportions, not seen since the 30′s.
Specific to MA was that the HCR bill would double charge them for health insurance that they were already paying for. Who would want that?
Let’s see what happens when Dems switch their focus from HCR and from stimulating Wall Street to stimulating Main Street. Once job creation increases substantially and the economy grows, favorable election results will follow, especially considering that the Repubs have yet to come up with any solutions, only criticisms, for problems largely caused by their policies.
I have faith that the American people will understand this, based also on good messaging from Obama et al, and that the elections will then take care of themselves. I cannot imagine that a party that does not offer solutions will prevail.
I find it ironic that health care reform has been killed by the same voters who sent Ted Kennedy to the Senate decade after decade.
That said — Mrs. Coakley was a terrible candidate; from what I can see, if I lived in her state, I would not have been able to bring myself to vote for her.
Saying “F**k You* to one having passed is beyond the pale. Unacceptable. Abhorrent.
Coakley was the right candidate to represent Democrats: arrogant, ignorent, high handed, dismissive, and entitled, but even she could have been elected in Massachusetts if Obama’s agenda wasn’t so universally unpopular.
It wasn’t a rejection of healthcare, Massachusetts already has hc, but Democrat lip service to national security and serial economic folly was what the voters rejected. Coakley simply represented a continuation of the Democrat’s failed socialist policies, and she paid the price.
Let’s hope Obama and the Democrats have enough sense to see this loss for the rejection it so surely is, and stop trying to spin Brown’s victory as an extension of Obama’s win a year ago. That’s not only transparently silly, it’s also an abominable lie.
Blu, I think what Mr Ebert was trying to say is that the voters of the Bay State said that. Still, while someone using the handle DainBramaged (not quoted in my article, but Miss Fiano quoted him) can throw the f word around like a sophomore, I’d have expected more of a well-known person like Roger Ebert.
I was talking on the phone with a woman in Boston today, about some small business matter. She works in a clerical position for a moderate sized import and distribution firm.
As we were about to finish up, she asked me to hold the line,and then after some confusion, got back moments later with apologies. I offered up a somewhat lame, but I expected commiseratory sounding, wisecrack about how it was only natural that she was a bit discombobulated.
“How so?” she asked.
“The election”, I said, “… no doubt it has people in your area a little off kilter”.
“Not me” she said, “I’ll tell you I’m glad, and a lot of us around here are, and …” and then, she gave me a little further perspective on what she thought about the “Kennedy seat” result.
What was surprising, was not so much that there was someone in Boston who voted Republican, nor even that an intelligent so-called “working class” woman would vote that way, but the ardent, unabashed, affirmative, and almost aggressive tone with which she expressed her opinions to someone she really didn’t know and who could have held any political opinions at all.
This woman was clearly fed-up with Democrat politics as usual, and Democrat entitlement attitudes in Massachusetts; and her remarks had nothing at all to do with some pique she felt over not getting enough welfare-statism.
Just one instance, but yeah, she was “gloating”
I don’t belive it was an honest win. Time and time again, the installation of voting machines, which make for unverifiable results, a hand count that is, Republicans win in THOSE election. However, in districts that hand counting was the method, Coakley won. Just history repeating itself. Republican wins (especially in Massachusetts, for God’s sake) coincide with methods that are questionable. Some people choose to give much of their time, instead of a regular job, making a priority in life, researching for the sake of democracy, the fidelity, or lack of it in elections. Bev Harris, an honorable person, whose work has been revered, takes note, of this recent Massachusetts “election”.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/80830.html
I don’t suspect you Conservative Republicans will look, because, after all, reality for you, is only what pleases you, just painting reality in colors that make you smile, what a way to go about in the world, with your lenses blurred to perfection.
I don’t belive it was an honest win. Time and time again, the installation of voting machines, which make for unverifiable results, a hand count that is, Republicans win in THOSE election. However, in districts that hand counting was the method, Coakley won. Just history repeating itself.
As long as the Democrats lose, wingnuts don’t care. They’re not interested in democracy, or the assurance of a democracy; they’re interested in their tribe getting power by whatever means possible.
A normal person, even if they thought that election machines were not a problem, would recognise that other people’s doubts weaken the legitimacy of those elections. Since alternatives exist, a normal person who thought that election machines wree not a problem would nonetheless not support their use unless the concerns of others on their security were assured. This is because a normal person considers democracy and the fairness of the system to be more important than who wins in the short term.
Wingnuts do not. Wingnuts consider it reasonable to commit fraud as long as they win.
As Dana has said.
blubonnet:
I don’t belive it was an honest win. Time and time again, the installation of voting machines, which make for unverifiable results, a hand count that is, Republicans win in THOSE election. However, in districts that hand counting was the method, Coakley won. Just history repeating itself. Republican wins (especially in Massachusetts, for God’s sake) coincide with methods that are questionable.
In a state that is 90% controlled by Dems, the Republicans rigged the vote. Please explain how it was done! Obviously you have the whole inside information on it, along with pooter. It’s not even 0800 and my day is made.
Blu wrote:
Thing is, there are no voting machines used by the independent pollsters, and Scott Brown was shown moving steadily up on Martha Coakley, and the race gained national attention in the past two weeks because Mr Brown took a lead. The polls had a significant amount of variation — one showed Mr Brown with a 15 point lead! — but they were unanimous in one regard: everybody (perhaps Zogby was different) showed Mr Brown with a significant lead. According to Steve Kornacki, even Mrs Coakley’s internal campaign polls showed her trailing by 3 points.
If the actual election results reasonably reflected the pre-election polls, on what would you base not believing it was an honest win?
Pho goes off on his usual rant:
Boy, you just don’t understand American politics. At all. Stop reading those far left websites, pull your head out of your butt, and wake up and smell the coffee!
You can always tell when an election has been conducted in and open and honest way, 3 of the more conclusive signs are listed below.
Thugs from the New Black Panther Party are on duty wearing black uniforms, standing in formation outside voting precincts, wielding clubs and shouting threatening obscenities at senior citizens.
Blocks of votes disappear into the hands of Democrat officials only to be “discovered” later if the outcome is close. The votes inevitable prove to significantly favor the Democrat, often in much greater proportion than in the previously counted vote.
Votes from overseas military personnel are routinely disqualified because of imaginary imperfections.
All you need to know about the sanity of Phoeny and blubonnet is exemplified above.
*Cripes* …
One wonders what kind of vote tabulation system someone like Blu would approve of. Perhaps a pair of buttons labeled “More” and “Less” built into the arm of her recliner chair?
Let’s see, a show of hands might result in the weak or fearful feeling intimidated. Ballot boxes can be stuffed with paper slips, and we need to watch who does the counting … but not too closely lest they feel intimidated by “reich-wing repukes”.
Punch cards are difficult for the elderly, or fumbling, or stupid to use; and electronic machines of any kind can be interfered with.
Meanwhile the Demos are out passing out cigarettes and walking around money to their state dependant (noun) clients, and voting thousands of dead persons to cite elections held in Detroit wherein more people were registered to vote than were statistically eligible to register.
Oh and then there is the proud recent history of Democrat handling of absentee ballots …
Yeah, sure, the Democrats want democracy: just about as much as they want to be denied access to your economic jugular vein.
That’s right, just by ignoring something, it doesn’t exist for ya’all. Incidentally exit polls were nonexistent. Why? No evidence, if one just covers their eyes. Why does this not surprise me?
Hey, blu, there is a world-wide conspiracy to add an “e” to your moniker and then sell the new moniker as fake butter. You really need to fix that world-wide conspiracy to prevent harm to your “good” name. It’s a conspiracy, I tell you!
John, has anyone told you that there really is no Easter bunny? Same with Santa. Sorry. Your world is Disney, bud.
Blu wrote:
There were no exit polls because the polling firms assumed that this would be a Democratic cakewalk, and it just wasn’t worth the investment. By the time anyone realized that this was a real horse race, it was too late to get exit polling organized.
Here’s one of my “whacko” observers:
Burt Hall – Former Group Director, U.S. Government Accountability Office on national security matters, 35 years of service evaluating, for Congress, activities of the Department of Defense, the three military services and their major contractors. He served also on a congressional commission, similar to the 9/11 one, and with the Office of Management and Budget. Graduate of the Harvard Advanced Management Program. WWII Vet. Co-author of Misues of Power – How the Far Right Gained and Misuses Power (2005) and How the Experts Win at Bridge (1996).
* Essay Reopening the 9/11 Investigation 1/17/10:
“In OpEd News.Com of January 8, 2010, 911 Widows strongly objected to the absence of any accountability for the 9/11 and Xmas Day terror attacks. Their position is that without personal accountability there will be no impetus to prevent future failures. The major issue they raise is: “The 9/11 Commissioners would not assign any accountability nor did they recommend that incompetent people be fired”.
The 9/11 Widows are on the right track, but don’t have the full story because the 9/11 Commission didn’t disclose it. The White House was the real problem. How do you fire the President and Vice- President, except at election time?After rejecting the new office of homeland security, the Vice-President was supposed to set up a defense against domestic attacks. Over a period of several months his project never got off the ground. All the discussion about sharing of information and connecting dots at lower levels had nothing to do with the 9/11 outcome. How could it — neither the President nor the Vice-President ever accepted what was then the most advanced threat in U.S. history? …
True accountability for 9/11 should be shared by the President, the Vice President and their national security team. An extensive article on this entire topic (including the White House cover-up) is out for possible publication. The article documents that our government at the very highest level had reliable information on the approaching 9/11 attacks, but did not make an attempt to stop them. To this day we do not know why, although the article suggests a possible reason. The 9/11 investigation should be reopened, and only then will the 911 Widows find some peace of mind in their long quest for accountability.” http://www.opednews.com/articles
[For more information on the 9/11 widows, see Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, and Lorie Van Auken.]
Harry Ballantyne
Harry C. Ballantyne, ASA
I could bring you hundreds more of highly credible individuals’ professionals’ statements, but for now, here’s 60 AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS. For those with that characteristic, indicating intelligence…curiosity. I guess the liklihood of Conservatives looking is slim. After all, they have that serious learning disorder of “already knowing everything”. Only seeing what pleases them. For those with intellectual honesty, take a look. The rest of you all Conservatives, go ahead and do what you do best, continue making snarky remarks.
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/145
One wonders what kind of vote tabulation system someone like Blu would approve of. Perhaps a pair of buttons labeled “More” and “Less” built into the arm of her recliner chair?
This problem has already been solved again and again in working democracies. Ballot papers marked in ink by the voter, collected and audited under the observation of any interested observers (which usually means both major parties having representation in each polling place), and counted by disinterested parties under the scrutiny of observers.
It’s not rocket science. It’s the system used by every functioning Western democracy – which makes the American drive towards using unaccountable and opaque voting machines with known security holes even more suspicious.
The problem has to do with the American psyche: we want the answers, and we want them now! We use voting machines because they tabulate the votes quickly, so we can go to bed at 10:30 PM on election night knowing who won.
Perhaps we have more actual votes to cast, too. I don’t know about New Zealand, but in the last election here — an off-year election in 2009 — we had a ballot full of local government offices, judicial choices and ballot questions; I didn’t count them, but I’d guess that there were at least 20 races on the ballot on which I could vote. You’ll like this list of what are called “row officers,” using Bucks County’s website as the example, ten officers which our state constitution specifies as elective. I wonder how long it would take to tabulate hand-filled-out paper ballots in Philadelphia for all of those offices.
Dana, given your continual inability to see the forest for the trees (as witness your questions on Pandagon over the “free speech = money” question), let me suggest that these are features, not bugs.
People in a position to make decisions want voting in America to be complicated. They want voters to be discouraged and to have low turn outs. They want huge complicated ballots. And they want opaque, corruptable means of tabulations.
And they throw out this weak excuse of “wanting immediate answers” knowing that someone will be gullible enough to believe it. Consider – apart from “well, that’s the way it is”, what evidence do you actually have that Americnas are consititutionally unable to survive for three or four days without an answer?
Ooooh, suspicious!! Conspiracies, plots, and sinister motives, Oh My !!!
Another paranoid rant:
Yep, more with them sinister plots, oh boy!! Better put my tinfoil hat on, people in positions to make decisions are conspiring against me RIGHT NOW!!!
Seriously Pho, you’re starting to join Blu in Cuckoo-Land …