The Outraged Liberal tries to make sense of today's conflicting poll numbers. Good luck, Dan Kennedy cautions.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
The Outraged Liberal tries to make sense of today's conflicting poll numbers. Good luck, Dan Kennedy cautions.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
what the polls say is
By Anonymous
Sun, 01/10/2010 - 5:28pm
what we already knew. Martha is favored but it could be close enough for Brown to steal it. Let's face it, it shouldn’t be close and the fact it is, is entirely Coakley's fault for her uninspired lackadaisical campaign since the primary December 8.
These polls should motivate Scott Brown supporters. And they should motivate Martha to get off her butt and hit the campaign trail.
I hope she didn't rope-a-dope her way back the AG's office ... or maybe I do ... whoever wins must run again in 2012 and it'll be a cinch to beat Brown at that time but Martha will be in for life. Think about that before you cast your vote.
There are some other things to think about. How the Democrats in Washington are doing the "people's work." I'm not happy about the Senate health bill or the financial regulatory reform bills. I think the Democrats have sold out to the moneyed interests - corporate and other for-profit like wall street - plus we in Mass already have much of the health reform regulations already. (And because we do, the Senate health bill is unpopular in Mass by a large margin.)
Either way, Kirk will be the one to vote on health care, and Martha would be the one to vote on other bills. Plus having 60 Democrat Senators puts people like Nelson and Lieberman in the drivers seat dictating whatever crappy policies they want. Lieberman killed the public option and medicare expansion (even though he loved it less than one year ago.) It might not be a bad thing to have 59 Democrats in the Senate, at least until the Democrats stop passing bills for corporate and other for-profit interests at the expense of the middle class. (We need campaign finance reform OH! do we need it.)
PS Write-in the name of your favorite Democrat on Special Election Day, Tuesday Jan 19.
Anonymous, As much you or I
By anon2
Mon, 01/11/2010 - 12:53pm
Anonymous,
As much you or I hate it, what’s getting through congress is what’s politically viable in this climate. Congress doesn’t work well when one party with 40 votes,runs complete obstruction, rather than bipartisan compromise. Because of their position, it leaves little leeway for the Blue dogs to wiggle in their own districts. Thats causing them to be more conservative then they need to be (which I think is counter productive)
With that said, what is getting through congress is a start to real reform. One thing to remember is this is the first piece of major progressive legislation to get this far in around 40-50 years. That in itself is no small feat.
Plus the makeup of the senate has always put the brakes on sweeping, radical (in comparison to the status quote) legislation.
That’s the American system, love it or hate it. It’s working, the gears are grinding, and the Dem’s are getting things done. We shouldn’t let off our representatives, but we also shouldn’t be getting disillusioned because of systematic setbacks. Until the GOP dies, or is reborn; we’ll have to settle for the Blue dogs as the only check on Dem’s. But because they’re within the party, they’ll hold more power to sway legislation.
Ultimately, we need to have faith in voters in those districts; and we need to push and support candidates that are unaplogicially progressive. Our biggest problem with the Blue dogs of now is they’re still fighting their battles of the 90’s and 00’s and letting the GOP frame the debate in their districts; instead of mixing their liberal and conservative platform into something that fundamentally makes sense for their location. The last thing we need to do is alienate their constituents, or throw them to the wolves; thus shrinking out tent.
Progress is a slow march, and politics isn’t for those wanting instant gratification.
a start to real reform (depends on what you mean by real)
By Anonymous
Mon, 01/11/2010 - 3:18pm
No it isn't. Our president did not push back against either the health insurance industry or the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, the industry called the shots. The Senate has written a health insurance bill that guarantees the industry 30 million new insurance customers with taxpayers paying the difference between what the customer can afford and the price of the premium. Not a bad deal for the for-profit health insurance companies (AHIP) which concurrently have announced premiums will rise 124% over the next years (that's more than double.)
Moreover, subsidies for the middle class are insufficient and middle class Americans will continue to find themselves going further into debt as they pay deductibles and co-pays.
You should know, 21% of all people in Massachusetts with mandated health insurance choose to forgo necessary medical procedures because they cannot afford the deductibles and co-pays. The Senate bill will do the same thing so you'll have people pay $8000 a year for insurance coverage, as mandated by the Federal government, and yet individuals will STILL not be able to afford necessary procedures because of deductibles and co-pays.
A majority of Massachusetts residents do not want Federal health reform to pass. How do you explain a state that does not want the rest of the country to get what it has? MA decided to put the reform in place and address cost control later... a start, right? Cost control has not happened. Massachusetts has the highest health insurance premiums in the nation. I wonder if the reason a majority of Massachusetts residents do not want Federal health reform to pass is becuase it requires every American who does not get health insurance at work to buy health insurance from a for-profit company even though the insured may not be able to afford to later afford necessary health services because of deductibles and co-pays.
The Senate Bill has an individual mandate to BUY health insurance if you don't have it from your employer and no employer mandate. It has no public option and no medicare expansion, so health insurance customers will be paying a 16% premium, which is to say only 0.86 of every dollar they pay eventually pays for health services and 16% goes to to profit and overhead. Medicare has a 4% overhead which mean 0.96 cents of every premium dollar paid goes to health services. One senator was able to get Medicare expansion removed from the Senate bill and it appears the WH was in favor of having it removed. If the biggest problem with health care in the US is cost, how can you justify this bill as reform?
If an American does not buy health insurance, the IRS becomes the industry's collection agency and charges the individual 2% of their gross income as a penalty.
If you call this "a start to real reform" than I don't think you and I have similar perspective on what kind of reform is good reform.
The reason the public option and medicare expansion was removed from the Senate health bill was because it would compete favorably with for-profit health insurance companies and not allow them to profit from customers who would have chosen those options. Whose interests were served, citizens or for-profit companies?
This Senate bill is not real reform, it defines a new relationship between citizens, government and for-profit companies. Sure, we've paid into FICA by law and are entitled to the benefits but never before have Americans been required by law to buy an expensive product like health insurance from for-profit companies.
The problem with Congress is not progressives or blue dogs or Republicans. It is that the people who hold office want to remain in office and so they legislate for special interests such as wall street, the health insurance industry, and pharma and against the interests of the citizens who pick up the tab. Industry and lobbyists donate large sums of money to their campaigns. Congress is owned by corporate America and as a result, your vote matters very little.
You do people a disservice by claiming it's working. It's broken. How do you claim Democracy is working when 65% of Americans want a Public Option and 1 senator is in a position to block it? How do you claim Democracy is working when the minority party is blocking every single piece of legislation that has been passed in the house and the legislation that does pass is a government bailout of the fir-profit health insurance industry financed by "consumers" and required by government?