One senate seat lost - democrats in soul-searching and threatened?
By mensab
@mensab (4200)
Philippines
January 21, 2010 3:55am CST
the senate that was held for long by democrat ted Kennedy was lost by democrats to a republican. that one seat is critical to democrats hold on super-majority which will allow smooth passage of priority bills by obama. what's happening with democrats? or the voters changed when kennedy passed away?
2 people like this
4 responses
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
21 Jan 10
Massachusetts already has universal health care, with about 98% of the state's residents covered under some type of plan, public or private. However, they have seen how much it costs, how it affects their tax burdens and the premiums they pay for private health insurance. They know the ups and downs of such a system and realize how much more it would cost and the nightmare of administering that type of system on a federal level.
The Democrat running for the Senate seat not only did not run an effective campaign, she demonstrated her ignorance of local, national and international issues in a series of disastrous interviews and during the debate with her opponent. She was not qualified. She basically let everyone know that the "machine" was going to get her elected and that she was going to vote the line they dictated.
Brown, on the other hand, showed he was invested in the issues of both the state and the nation. He echoed the sentiments of the voters in decrying the "politics as usual" in Washington and promised to be a voice for the people in the Senate.
Health care was an important issue here but not the only one. The voters decided to send a message to Washington and the message is that they won't be ignored any more. They don't like the priorities of the Obama administration and they are not willing to allow his agenda to be shoved down their throats, stifling the voices of those who oppose his agenda. They chose Scott Brown to go to Washington and tell them so.
2 people like this
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
21 Jan 10
The democrats put their money on the wrong horse for that seat. The democrat running for it was not a good one, I would imagine. There seemed to be a lot of complaints about her politics and attitude. The Republican that won had a enthusiastic "can do" attitude, and I guess the citizens of Massachusetts just thought he was better.
1 person likes this
@mensab (4200)
• Philippines
22 Jan 10
so now voters look at the individual candidates and not their respective party affiliation. is america moving away from the traditional party system? or the state of massachusetts has shifted its preference to republicans? the result is a sign for democrats to change gear and start to communicate with the voters. or simply there is a discontent to the obama administration.
@clrumfelt (5597)
• Tennessee Ridge, Tennessee
21 Jan 10
I don't think it really mattered what kind of campaign the dem candidate ran. People knew she would go to Congress and rubber-stamp whatever the dems wanted to do, and voters are tired of that kind of thinking.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
21 Jan 10
From what I have seen the Democrat running did not run a good race. I guess she thought sense it she was democrat she would win. After all who thought a Republican could win in MA.
ALso Brown did run a good campaign. HE really got out there and got peoples attention.
CNN (for what it is worth) was talking about how 80% of the people of MA are happy with their health insurance and DO NOT want it to change.
Well the democrat was saying she would vote for the new healthcare bill, while the republican was saying he would vote against it. They thought that was a big deciding factor for people. Who knows if it is true. I personally think it has more to due with that fact that a lof of Americans are mad about the party that promised "more tranparency" had done tons of "closed" door deals and left the public out of it.
But it definately is a game changer.
1 person likes this





