Looks like Coakley is conceding.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Right- except there wasn't an incumbent running in that election.

Why should I know anything about the NY 23d seat?

NY is mostly Democratic any way, what does it matter if one more goes the way the rest of the state goes.

And I am not pleased with the demise of the Republicans but Obama is personally popular but his priorities are not. I think you're misreading what people are saying about Obama.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Exit polls in November showed Obama and his agenda was still quite popular with the electorate, so you are correct- those races had little to nothing to do with national issues.

I do expect Dems to lose some ground in the Senate and House this year slightly more than what is typical in normal midterm election swings (while still maintaining control of the House and Senate).

That's not what I've been reading. Obama is personally popular, not his agenda.

[Archaea]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/1...ama/index.html

Here's somebody who doesn't think Obama's politics are popular any more. Maybe she's the lone conservative at CNN, I dunno.

I like this part:

The choices are bad: Give up on reform and look like a disorganized, weak majority. Or push through reform and look like a corrupt, desperate and arrogant majority.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That's not what I've been reading. Obama is personally popular, not his agenda.

Are you talking about in Virginia and New Jersey, or nationally now? If NJ and Virginia, his agenda was popular at the time of the election (which is why I say those elections aren't signs of anything nationally, anymore than NY-23).

Look- you want to make an argument about trends in elections since November and say it proves Dems are in real trouble. That is just a bad argument. If you don't care about NY-23 or know anything about it, you shouldn't be making that argument as that race comprises 20% of all gubernatorial or congressional elections since November. Another 20% was a Dem election in California. 20% was Virginia, 20% NJ, and 20% Mass today. That isn't very much data to look at, particularly when Dems took 2 of 5 (losing 2 they should have historically won- NJ and Mass, and winning one they shouldn't have- NY).

Yes, poll numbers are down (they generally fall for the party in power, particularly in midterm election years). That's fine, and within the norm. As I said, Dems still have 59 Senate votes, so if they can keep their heads without freaking out from the silly noise of the pundits, health care will still get done (which is what I care about).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/1...ama/index.html

Here's somebody who doesn't think Obama's politics are popular any more. Maybe she's the lone conservative at CNN, I dunno.

I like this part:

There is nothing corrupt about a party with 59 Senate votes (51 required to pass a bill, or even 50 plus the VP) and 256 in the House (218 required to pass a bill) actually passing a bill which they campaigned heavily on and which got them elected in the first place.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Are you talking about in Virginia and New Jersey, or nationally now? If NJ and Virginia, his agenda was popular at the time of the election (which is why I say those elections aren't signs of anything nationally, anymore than NY-23).

Look- you want to make an argument about trends in elections since November and say it proves Dems are in real trouble. That is just a bad argument. If you don't care about NY-23 or know anything about it, you shouldn't be making that argument as that race comprises 20% of all gubernatorial or congressional elections since November. Another 20% was a Dem election in California. 20% was Virginia, 20% NJ, and 20% Mass today. That isn't very much data to look at, particularly when Dems took 2 of 5 (losing 2 they should have historically won- NJ and Mass, and winning one they shouldn't have- NY).

Yes, poll numbers are down (they generally fall for the party in power, particularly in midterm election years). That's fine, and within the norm. As I said, Dems still have 59 Senate votes, so if they can keep their heads without freaking out from the silly noise of the pundits, health care will still get done (which is what I care about).

God, I hope it doesn't.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/new...pic_upset.html

Even before the first results were announced, administration officials were privately accusing Coakley of a poorly run campaign and playing down the notion that Obama or a toxic political landscape had much to do with the outcome.
Coakley's supporters, in turn, blamed that very environment, saying her lead dropped significantly after the Senate passed health care reform shortly before Christmas and after the Christmas Day attempted airliner bombing that Obama himself said showed a failure of his administration.
Days before the polls closed, Democrats were fingerpointing and laying blame.

But the brunt of it, and Dems like, you, is you want to shove health insurance reform down our throats, whether we like it or not.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

God, I hope it doesn't.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/new...pic_upset.html



But the brunt of it, and Dems like, you, is you want to shove health insurance reform down our throats, whether we like it or not.

How is it "shoving reform down your throat?" When the people elect 60 (now 59) Senators from one party and 258 members of the House and a president all of whom run on the platform of health reform, it makes it hard to believe people would claim reform is being "shoved down their throat" when the politicians actually do attempt reform.

[MikeWaters]

I hope Arlen Specter feels sick tonight.

Rot in hell Mr. Specter. You are no longer a traitor. You are a worthless traitor.

This may be a bad cycle for incumbents in general. I know that I am not excited about the GOP congressional leadership, and I would like to see many of them thrown out (ideally replaced by conservatives in my fantasy).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I hope Arlen Specter feels sick tonight.

Rot in hell Mr. Specter. You are no longer a traitor. You are a worthless traitor.

This may be a bad cycle for incumbents in general. I know that I am not excited about the GOP congressional leadership, and I would like to see many of them thrown out (ideally replaced by conservatives in my fantasy).

Possible.

[Tex]

Love it, love it, love it. The new Boston Tea Party.

Last night was one of the few times I actually cheered when a politician was elected. I haven't been this elated since Tom Daschle went down in flames almost 6 years ago. I was feeling optimistic about this one the past week, but hey, it's Massachusettes and the Dems have got a record of cheating. I know the Left is trying to downplay it by citing Republican governors, etc., but it's hard to escape the fact that this comes just 12 months into the "Hope and Change" Messiah presidency, in the middle of his most important domestic agenda item, in a state he won by 26 points, in a seat that had been held by Democrats for half a century! Wow!

Some Dems have gotten the message. Within minutes of Brown's victory, Evan Bayh says his party is controlled by far leftists, Jim Webb calls for no further health care votes until Brown is seated, and Barney Frank--Barney Frank--incredibly says this:

... I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened.

Death blow.

They are panicked. Susan Estrich said Reid's office is going to be flooded with calls in the morning from vulnerable Senators saying, "How are you going to protect us?" Hugh Hewitt called this election the most consequential non-presidential election of his lifetime. And my favorite sour grapes comment of the night was from Roger Ebert:

Massachusetts to Teddy: "F--k you."

Temper, temper, Mr. Ebert.

Of course, one person not learning a lesson last night was Obama. Word was out even before the polls had closed was that they were going to double-down. He seems to think Chicago-style cut-off-the-knees politics is still going to work. He also hasn't quite comprehended his own fall from grace. This is now 3 major state-wide elections where he's campaigned for the losing candidate, two of them in deeply blue states (NJ and MA, and then also VA).

2010 is shaping up to be a great year for Republicans, and especially conservatives, provided we play the cards right and get the right candidates.

Congratulations, Senator-elect Brown. And thank you Obama, Pelosi, and Reid for re-energizing our party.