Woohoo! Go, Scott Brown.

[rvg]

Thank you, Massachusetts, for restoring my faith in our democracy. This just goes to show that we have a self-correcting system of government. Democrats needed to be taught a lesson in humility.

[Lemur]

rvg: Ahem. Beskar: Uncool.

[Beskar]

I am sorry Lemur.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Woohoo!

CR

[Major Robert Dump]

wHAT IS ALL THIS HUBUB ABOUT? WAS THERE A NEW PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

[tibilicus]

Just watched a video of this guy, why is he such a loud mouth?

Oh well, so much for Obamas "change we can believe in". I guess Americans aren't ready for that so called change. I guess it's about much more than universal healthcare, it's about the very core of American politics and the apparent American values. Obama obviously was under the mistaken impression that these values could be changed.

I guess if this continues we can expect to see another Republican in the white house in 3 years time and a return to the "traditional American" values. Do I personally think these traditional values will allow America to keep it's position as the dominant power in the world? Possibly not..

[Furunculus]

Obama obviously was under the mistaken impression that these values could be changed.

And why wouldn't he be under that mistaken impression, is it not the core of modern liberal-left politics that the word "progressive" means the unrelenting attempt to hammer out the rough edges of human nature via legislation and compulsion in order to achieve a more harmonious society.......... regardless of the fact that what it really amounts to is the attempt to pervert that natural inclinations of individual human nature (both the good and the bad) under the foolish assumption that there is a 'correct' way to order society?

[Subotan]

Democrats needed to be taught a lesson in humility.
Right, because wanting affordable healthcare for everyone in your country is hubris.

[rvg]

It's not just that, but rather the fact that Dems were running the show as if they got a blank check from the public, and their ultra-partisan manner of handling the healthcare bill is part of the problem.

[TinCow]

I'm pretty liberal and have been a party-line Democrat for many years now. However, I can't even find myself mourning this result too much. First, the sheer irony of the health care bill being defeated as a result of Ted Kennedy's seat going to a Republican is high entertainment value in and of itself. Second, there is something fundamentally wrong with a party that is incapable of passing legislation with 59 Senate seats and a large majority in the House.

[Subotan]

It's not just that, but rather the fact that Dems were running the show as if they got a blank check from the public,

They did. They ran on a manifesto (Platform?) of health care reform, they won the election, and control of Congress. Looks like a blank check to me.

and ultra-partisan manner of Congress as a whole in handling the healthcare bill is part of the problem.

Fix'd. You know just as much as I do that the Republicans weren't the ones reaching across the aisle. Whether the Dems did is debatable, but the Republicans were not victims.

First, the sheer irony of the health care bill being defeated as a result of Ted Kennedy's seat going to a Republican is high entertainment value in and of itself.

Truth. As a Brit, I'm finding this amazingly funny. The sheer incompetence of everyone involved in Congress in the past year has provided much entertainment to the rest of the planet.

Second, there is something fundamentally wrong with a party that is incapable of passing legislation with 59 Senate seats and a large majority in the House.

There is something fundamentally wrong with an entire system of government that prevents core pieces of legislation of the ruling party being passed when they have a majority in the legislature.

Thank God for the House of Commons and our "elected dictatorship".

[rvg]

They did. They ran on a manifesto (Platform?) of health care reform, they won the election, and control of Congress. Looks like a blank check to me.

It's not, and this election result shows it quite well.

There is something fundamentally wrong with an entire system of government that prevents core pieces of legislation of the ruling party being passed when they have a majority in the legislature.

Yes, it is difficult to administer sweeping changes, and that is a good thing. Revolutionary changes usually bear sweeping consequences, and if the healthcare bill if flawed (which it is), then the public will end up paying the price for a legislative mistake.

[Vladimir]

There is something fundamentally wrong with an entire system of government that prevents core pieces of legislation of the ruling party being passed when they have a majority in the legislature.

Thank God for the House of Commons and our "elected dictatorship".

Because a tyranny of the majority is a good thing. I don't mind, that's one reason why so many English fled to us.

[TinCow]

Yes, it is difficult to administer sweeping changes, and that is a good thing. Revolutionary changes usually bear sweeping consequences, and if the healthcare bill if flawed (which it is), then the public will end up paying the price for a legislative mistake.

At the same time, the current use of the filibuster is not remotely historical. Google-fu tells me that there were no filibusters at all between 1789 and 1840, and fewer than 2 dozen total between 1841 and 1899. Between 1919 and 1963, there were a total of only 23 filibusters. From 2000 through 2008, there have never been fewer than 43 filibusters per year, with 139 filibusters in 2008 alone.

There's something wrong with our system. It was not intended to work like this.

[rvg]

Because a tyranny of the majority is a good thing. I don't mind, that's one reason why so many English fled to us.

Occasionally it even gets downgraded to a tyranny of the plurality.

[Ironside]

Yes, it is difficult to administer sweeping changes, and that is a good thing. Revolutionary changes usually bear sweeping consequences, and if the healthcare bill if flawed (which it is), then the public will end up paying the price for a legislative mistake.

If that healthcare bill fails to pass, you can celebrate with having your currently working system that costs twice as much as anybody elses and got the least coverage and bang for the bucks, for another decade or two.

Or putting it this way, cutting down your healthcare costs with 33% is a mediocre reform, cutting it down with 20% is a bad reform. That's with no quality loss or even quality increase on average.

[Scienter]

There's something wrong with our system. It was not intended to work like this.

But, it will keep working this way until we elect congresspeople who can do something other than only vote along party lines.

[Subotan]

It's not, and this election result shows it quite well..

Why?

Yes, it is difficult to administer sweeping changes, and that is a good thing. Revolutionary changes usually bear sweeping consequences, and if the healthcare bill if flawed (which it is), then the public will end up paying the price for a legislative mistake.

If the bill is flawed (Which it is), is that because the concept of healthcare reform is flawed, or is it because the process which generated that bill is flawed?

Because a tyranny of the majority is a good thing. I don't mind, that's one reason why so many English fled to us.

Oh, no, if the government tries to do something silly, we get our unelected Lords to smack them down

At the same time, the current use of the filibuster is not remotely historical. Google-fu tells me that there were no filibusters at all between 1789 and 1840, and fewer than 2 dozen total between 1841 and 1899. Between 1919 and 1963, there were a total of only 23 filibusters. From 2000 through 2008, there have never been fewer than 43 filibusters per year, with 139 filibusters in 2008 alone.

There's something wrong with our system. It was not intended to work like this.

Partisanship has become extreme. It's interesting to see that the Republicans in Congress, who claim that government is inefficient, are making government unworkable in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[KukriKhan]

But, it will keep working this way until we elect congresspeople who can do something other than only vote along party lines.

On the other hand, we should remember that filibusters, cloture, majorities, super-majorities, and all these other (annoying to us) nuances of law-making, are not constitutionally-mandated, and could be changed in a day - rather, they're products of rules made and agreed to at the start of congressional sessions.

[Vuk]

The people have spoken! Now just wait till 2012 when we get Palin in.
It is funny, because I have seen countless polls saying that a great majority of Americans do not want the health care legislation that the house and senate is offering, but they still employ all their dirty, underhanded tricks to pass it against the express disapproval of the people who they are supposed to be representing. They are representatives, and they are supposed to act like it.

[rvg]

If the bill is flawed (Which it is), is that because the concept of healthcare reform is flawed, or is it because the process which generated that bill is flawed?

The process was bad. The bill is loaded with problems because it was rushed. As a result, it contains a lot of problems and pork that was put in there to appease particular senators (like the special status for Nebraska). I would welcome the healthcare reform, but it needs to be done right. For example, this humongous healthcare bill needs to be broken up into dozens of mini-bills each of which would target a specific aspect of the healthcare reform. That way the reform will be overall more thought out, will have more support among the people, and possibly even some bipartisan backing.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

And why wouldn't he be under that mistaken impression, is it not the core of modern liberal-left politics that the word "progressive" means the unrelenting attempt to hammer out the rough edges of human nature via legislation and compulsion in order to achieve a more harmonious society.......... regardless of the fact that what it really amounts to is the attempt to pervert that natural inclinations of individual human nature (both the good and the bad) under the foolish assumption that there is a 'correct' way to order society?

What's the core of conservative politics? I guess it doesn't involve any ideas about what the correct way to order society is...

[Subotan]

The people have spoken! .

No, the Republican Party has spoken.

Now just wait till 2012 when we get Palin in.

Thank God Armageddon will happen before she's inaugurated.

It is funny, because I have seen countless polls saying that a great majority of Americans do not want the health care legislation that the house and senate is offering,

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125030/He...c-Divided.aspx
Americans' support for U.S. healthcare legislation has crept up incrementally since early November. Now, slightly more Americans want their member of Congress to vote in favor of such legislation rather than against it, 49% vs. 46% -- a first since October.
I would love to see the maths you did to get -3% to constitute a "great majority".

They are representatives, and they are supposed to act like it.

Representatives != Delegates. Edumund Burke established that before the United States even existed.


EDIT:

The process was bad. The bill is loaded with problems because it was rushed. As a result, it contains a lot of problems and pork that was put in there to appease particular senators (like the special status for Nebraska). I would welcome the healthcare reform, but it needs to be done right. For example, this humongous healthcare bill needs to be broken up into dozens of mini-bills each of which would target a specific aspect of the healthcare reform. That way the reform will be overall more thought out, will have more support among the people, and possibly even some bipartisan backing.

It took years to establish the NHS in the UK. Attempting to do something similar in the USA over one year is nigh-impossible.

[rvg]

No, the Republican Party has spoken.

Damn those mighty 12% of the Massachusetts electorate!

[Lemur]

I would hesitate to declare that a single-state election is a proxy referendum for the nation. I mean, hey, you're free to declare that it's a referendum on the entire galaxy if you like, but I think it's a bit much.

Fivethirtyeight does some number crunching on the spectacular 31-point swing from a 26-point Obama win in 2008 to Coakley's 5-point loss yesterday.

At a bare minimum, 10 of those points must be assigned to the national environment. Generic ballot polling suggests that the Democrats' position has worsened by a net of 10 points since November 2008, from winning the House popular vote by 10 points in 2008 to being dead even with Republicans today.

Also at a bare minimum, 11 points of blame should be assigned to Coakley. That represents the difference between the 58 percent of vote that she received at her high-water mark in the polls to the 47 percent she received on Election Day. A fairly large number of voters, it appears, actually turned away from Coakley; it was not just a matter of undecided ones turning toward Brown.

That leaves us with 10 more points of blame to assign; let's just dole those out as evenly as possible, giving 3 more points to Coakley, 3 more points to the national environment, and 4 to Massachusetts-specific special contingencies -- it gets the extra point because it hadn't received any yet.

That would make the final score: national environment 13, Coakley 14, special circumstances 4.

If you follow through on the math, this would suggest that Coakley would have won by about 8 points, rather than losing by 5, had the national environment not deteriorated so significantly for Democrats. It suggests that the Democrats would have won by 9 points, rather than losing by 5, had the candidate been someone other than Coakley. And it suggests that the race would have been a 1-point loss (that is, basically too close to call), rather than a 5-point loss, even if Coakley had run such a bad campaign and even if the national environment had deteriorated as much as it has, but had there not been the unusual circumstances associated with this particular election.

Obviously, this is a rather imprecise and unsophisticated exercise. But each of those implications feels about right to me. Maybe you'd do the math a little differently. But don't be sparing with your blame; there's plenty of it to go around.

[Vladimir]

Damn those mighty 12% of the Massachusetts electorate!

Tyranny of the minority.

[Lemur]

Best headline of the day: Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate

[Beskar]

My statement might have been "uncool", however, it was unfortunately very true. Maybe some plant extracts would solve a lot of the problems.

[Subotan]

Best headline of the day: Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate

Browsing through the comments:

I don't know where you attended college, but I'm questioning your math skills. In what world is 41 considered a majority over 59?

Is this irony deficiency a nation wide phenomenon?

[rvg]

You can find people with no sense of humor in every nation.