This is a big blow for Obama. The Democrat candidate Martha Coakley has conceded to Republican Scott Browne. When I was in the USA in September/October last year I went to a candidate forum during the Democratic primary. There was not even a thought at that time that the Democrats would not win the seat. There has not been a Republican Senator from Massachusetts since 1972.
According to people I have spoken to in the US there were some local issues at play, but this be will seen as a referendum on the Obama administration thus far, and on healthcare in particular. Browne has stated he will vote against the healthcare plan, and that means the Democrats can not exercise the “super-majority” that would push the Bill through the Senate. As the linked article above notes there is a cruel irony in that healthcare was the “cause of my life” for Senator Ted Kennedy whose death led to the election.
It will be interesting to see the flow-on effect. If the Democrats suffer a similar fate in the House races later this year, it will severely dent Obama. He is going to need every inch of his political acumen to come through this, and who knows if there will now be the changes to healthcare that are so desperately needed by the millions of Americans without insurance.
Grant, could you explain in a nutshell what the health reforms are that Obama wants to push, and why they are so heavily opposed?
@paul. probably best to let the man himself tell you. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
These are of course scaled back plans from what was originally proposed, in particular that there would be a “public option” ie state provided insurance scheme that would provide for the estimated 40 million Americans without coverage.
The opposition is founded on the widespread suspicion of government in the US and a lot of myth-making about the dangers of “socialised medicine” and the government deciding if you get treatment etc.
And how does this effect New Zealanders?
Basically the trillion dollars spent on war in the last 7 years would pay for healthcare for uninsured americans.
But the Republican Party is opposed to it, the healthcare this is not the war, which was waged on a mistake by George Bush
Thanks Grant – seems like a good start – we have all heard the appalling stories about the people who lose it all – life included – due to shonky insurance – or worse, the inability to pay for any insurance.
If its a good thing, why do the republicans not like it?
@Paul. One word, ideology.
The Republican party (which I am not a member of), is certainly opposed to Obama’s current plan, as am I.
The Republican party is certainly not opposed to healthcare reform.
I’m not sure if there is a parallel in NewZealand, but don’t forget that a solid 60 – 70% of americans wish they didn’t have to choose between the battling parties.
15% of fanatics on either side in Washington that are doing a terrible job of representing the people.
for what it’s worth – I think my own Govt. is too big to reel in.
@Grant
No, socialised medicine is not the main problem. People are angry over the insurance mandate. If the government simply taxed people and provided coverage to everyone (like here), there would be a lot less problem with it. There is widespread support for a public option, which anyone could have chosen but wouldn’t be forced to. It is the conservatives in the Senate (yes, in the Democratic Party, and that interloper Lieberman) who stripped out the public option.
What that left was a mandate. People would be forced to buy health insurance by the federal government, and would have to pay a $750 fine if they didn’t. Many people, myself included, do not think that is constitutional. The power to do that requires a legal argument that I suspect the Supreme Court will strike down. I won’t go into why, because it involves a lot of different court cases, but suffice it to say our constitution limits what government can do and not do. You don’t have that problem here.
Coakley lost not because people are disaffected with Obama in Massachusetts. He remains highly popular. Local media has said she just didn’t start campaigning and thought it was just going to be handed to her on a platter just because it is Massachusetts and Democrats win their without a fight. Well, Brown fought, and he kicked her ($#. This was a huge election, and it will have major consequences for US policy.
@Banksie
If you want a treaty with the US, it has to pass through the Senate. Global warming? 67 votes. Free trade treaty? 67 votes. And given the fact that the USA spends $500 billion a year on defense, maybe it has relevance to everyone around the world. The Senate also affirms Supreme Court justices. There is a remote chance that that could directly affect a Kiwi, because of the Alien Tort Claims Act. Didn’t know you could sue someone in the USA, did you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Tort_Statute
You sue under a treaty (67 votes), and it can go all the way to the Supreme Court (60 votes to break a filibuster).
The U.S. Senate affects lots of things.
The predominant view of the Dems is that incremental change is best, and that compromise will carry the day. This, of course, makes them look weak and opened the door to the Reps to settle on a single attack line, socialism, that folks could easily understand. That’s why Martha lost.
@Grant – sure – but whose? Are you saying the republicans don’t like it because it goes against their belief of health care (if so, what do they think about health care) or against the fact that its Obama and he could do anything and they will disagree…because they are republicans…you know – the nat/lab thing, in which case, the people are the one who lose.
@Jennifer
Socialism was not a campaign topic. I suggest you read the NYT and learn about that race. http://www.nyt.com Republicans across the country have called Obama a socialist from day 1. That isn’t a coherent argument. Obama is still popular in Mass.
@Paul
You will never find two Nats who will cross the lines and vote with Labour on a major issue that the party leadership is adamant about. Never. Yet, the two Republicans from Maine do that all the time.
Those couple of votes around 60 in the Senate have destroyed any chance at health reform, and I do blame Obama for letting this happen. If anything, it is the socialists who are disappointed.
Obama supported the public option, which is a watered down version of single payer. Then he abandoned it in the face of a couple of conservative *Democratic* senators who wouldn’t allow it. So, public insurance was dead. Then, they kept deliberating, and came up with the mandate. Obama picked that up and defended it. Worst possible solution, but fine…if only it were constitutional.
What we end up with at the end of all that is no comprehensive plan at all. AND, paying for abortions under this plan is illegal, even in the case of rape or incest. That’s liberal? 60 Democrats came up with that?
Obama needs to exert more leadership. That, and he needs about 3 more senators. This was a major step backwards.
The only silver lining is that Brown will be up again in 2012, when Obama will be at the top of the ticket. Enjoy your 2 years, Senator Brown.
Make no bones about it, this is a big blow for the democrats and for Obama. This has been a very safe seat for the democrats for many many years, and sure the Kennedy name and political competency helped, however, to lose it would be like Labour losing Mt Albert. In 12 months ‘yes we can’ has changed to ‘maybe we can’t’. The whole healthcare debate has been interesting to observe for a number of reasons: but one in particular – the messaging of the various parties. Political wordsmithing is an art in the States.
Grante Robertsone, Ie thinke youe maye havee usede ae fewe tooe manye “e”se whene referringe toe Scott Brown.
GO GOP GO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“…but suffice it to say our constitution limits what government can do and not do. You don’t have that problem here.”
Ummmmm…. I’m not sure I agree with you Mr Straw that it is a problem. I’d argue that the problem is with the fact that our system doesn’t limit our Government to a similar extent.
Isnt there a ‘bye election effect’ in NZ too! The turnout is low, the candidates get more attention than normal. The result is unexpected.
Andrew, Browne got serious traction on the health care plan by claiming it would raise taxes and cost jobs. The subtext was the socialist agenda, which was well teased in the run up. He also made good use of the notion that sending him to DC would kill the plan. Simple, joined up stuff that folks could understand. Martha became the plan personified, and got thrashed accordingly. Easy, really.
The ironic thing is that there were large parts of Obama’s healthcare bill, ie insurance mandate, public option, etc that ACT would have readily endorsed?
Mike – can you please explain to me why you want millions of your fellow countrymen to go without healthcare because they cannot afford insurance?
@Millsy,
I’m amazed that you are so certain you know what I want for millions of my fellow countrymen.
You couldn’t be further off the mark.
For you, and everyone else who doesn’t really understand what happened in the election last week:
The most liberal state in USA just told Obama he can stop ramming his plan down our throats and represent the people.
That doesn’t mean that his healcare ideas aren’t noble.
It doesn’t mean people (including me) don’t see the the need for changes in healthcare.
This was a referendum on how Obama’s politics.