… from his position as Chair of the DSCC. The motto of the DSCC is “Committed to Electing a Democratic Senate.” Just now, there was one … ONE!!!!!! … race in play. One that would be hard to lose. One that would be disastrous to lose.

Bob. Menendez. Needs. To. Resign. Now.

Comments

  1. #1 Azkyroth
    January 20, 2010

    When did Massachusetts wind up full of utter fucking morons?

  2. #2 MadScientist
    January 20, 2010

    @Azkyroth: Really, you shouldn’t be surprized. Stupidity is boundless. The democrat’s candidate is not desirable either; either way Mass. would be electing a loser. With all the people in that state you’d think the Dems could come up with a sensible candidate.

  3. #3 truth machine
    January 20, 2010

    Stupidity is boundless.

    You certainly demonstrate plenty of it. Whether Coakley was “not desirable”, “a loser”, not “a sensible candidate”, etc. (none of which are substantiated) is irrelevant — that she would have been a member of the Democratic caucus and a vote against a Republican filibuster is.

  4. #4 MadScientist
    January 20, 2010

    @truth machine: why would you believe she’d go with the party line? A loser is a loser and not good for the public; the Dems should never have put her up. It’s quite bizarre that people still believe the dems are any better than the GOP.

  5. #5 NewEnglandBob
    January 20, 2010

    Azkyroth, don’t kid yourself, Massachusetts, like all states has always been full of fucking morons.

    Until recently, they listened to reason and were not taken in by Dumbya-style lies.

    Many, I am sure, used this as a backlash at the black man who didn’t save the country with miracles in his first year.

  6. #6 JasonTD
    January 20, 2010

    truth machine,

    Whether Coakley was “not desirable”, “a loser”, not “a sensible candidate”, etc. (none of which are substantiated) is irrelevant — that she would have been a member of the Democratic caucus and a vote against a Republican filibuster is.

    Why don’t we drop any pretense of representative democracy then and simply place party names on ballots? If Party A wins an election, they can put in whatever puppet they want in the legislature that will vote according to the wishes of back room party bosses.

    Azkyroth and NewEnglandBob,

    I suppose that it feels good to assume that anyone that has different opinions than you and/or votes for the ‘wrong’ candidate is stupid. But since that is among the most arrogant and irrational positions to hold, I think you might consider other explanations for what happened in this election.

  7. #7 MyaR
    January 20, 2010

    Something I see missing from all the commentary* is that pretty much the only Democratic candidate who could’ve lost that was election was …. pretty much any woman. Just to be sure I’m not misunderstood, yes, I am saying that Mass is sexist in its electoral politics.

    * Except at my house, where my husband’s been gloomily predicting this outcome since Coakley won the primary.

  8. #8 jolly
    January 20, 2010

    What is it with Dems and healthcare? It is a foolish issue to take on first and yet Clinton tried it and now Obama made the same mistake. Most people don’t care that much about health care. MOST people say they like their coverage and their employer pays for the insurance so they don’t see it. MOST people are not ill and have not been denied coverage. Obama has poisoned the political waters by enticing people with a better way and then just continuing the policies of the last administration. He should have gone after the banks who are not helping people refinance their mortgages to keep their houses and they keep giving their upper management huge bonuses when they would have gone bankrupt without welfare for the rich. That was the populist issue to start an administration with. Give people hope that you are looking out for them first. Morons all.

  9. #9 Stephanie Z
    January 20, 2010

    It’s an interesting theory, jolly, but it’s not really supported by the numbers. You’re looking at around seven million subprime loans. Even affecting multiple people in a family, that doesn’t touch the number of uninsured and underinsured. Health care reform is the higher impact issue.

  10. #10 Greg Laden
    January 20, 2010

    Jason TD, there is something to the fact that Massachusetts has historically sent the most liberal senators and very liberal reps to congress and produced relatively liberal set of presidential candidates consistently without fail for longer than almost anyone reading this blog has been alive.

    The truth is that liberalism is not in a strong majority in Massachusetts, but it is historically a majority, and it is a majority that has been exploitable by an in place party apparatus.

    When a virtual tea-bagger takes the senatorial seat of the Liberal LIon it is perfectly reasonable to look at the losing candidate and the machine that should have been in place to support her candidacy as the main explanation. The idea that suddenly Massachusetts has become South Carolina is very much what the right wing would like everyone to believe (and to believe themselves) but that just did not happen.

  11. #11 Matt
    January 20, 2010

    Massachucetts has been a virtual one party state for decades.

    Mass also has a form of socialized medicine.

    Perhaps the voters there know something we dont?

    Perhaps the local voters are having a bit of buyers remorse?

    Perhaps democracy worked, and the right person was elected?

    crazier things have happened

  12. #12 mk
    January 20, 2010

    These are the kinds of things that happen when you have only two parties, and when one of those parties represents a very homogeneous group of Americans (conservative white christian men) while the other party represents everybody else. The everybody else party requires more patience and understanding and cajoling and stroking and compromising…etc. That is usually–not always, but usually–a decent recipe for fecklessness.

    It is why there is so much hand wringing by so many different Democrats today about whether it is now possible to continue with health care reform. Republicans would not waver one second if a major proposal of theirs took such a minor hit. It is easy to maintain cohesion and walk in lock step when everyone already thinks alike.

  13. #13 Greg Laden
    January 20, 2010

    Massachucetts has been a virtual one party state for decades.

    Right. One party to congress, and one party to the state house. Strangely, though, the former are Democrats the latter Republican.

  14. #14 Matt
    January 20, 2010

    True, Greg, former Governor Romney was a Repub. And, funny enough, a major catalyst in getting Mass state health reform through legislation.

    Come to think of it, maybe thats why Mass voters went Repub this time.

    But to your rebuttal, would you disagree the Mass. is ground zero for modern American liberalism? While the northeast generally speaking is declining in power within America, Mass. is still considered home territory for the Democratic party. So to lose there, in Teddy’s former seat, the man who kickstarted Obama’s campaign, to lose there with all the Catholic guilt and pathos, with the pressure of the future of Obamacare hanging by fingernails, seems a clear message to me.

    OTOH, this may be the wakeup call that saves Obama’s Presidency. He has three years to internalize this message and put some distance between himself and this loss.

  15. #15 Greg Laden
    January 20, 2010

    Matt, no I don’t agree. The split between right wing moronism and left wing sensible progressivism is close enough to half and half across the US that how a campaign runs in many places, including Massachusetts and Minnesota, matters more than any other single factor. Pre hoc and post hoc. This is not arm waving or politicized rhetoric. It’s just the way it is. There is no honest way that this can be spun as some sort of meaningful message other than that the Democratic Party remains capable of totally screwing up even when screwing up seems almost impossible. We’ve done it before, and we’ll do it again!

  16. #16 Paul S.
    January 20, 2010

    I think that people are in danger of overlooking the most fundamental reason for the Republican victory yesterday in Massachusetts, which is that I voted for a Democrat for the US Senate for the first time in my life, and therefore guaranteed a Republican victory, because I almost never vote for the winning candidate.

    Seriously, though, Massachusetts politics is weird in many ways. The Democrats have long totally dominated the state legislature (about 75% of the members are Democrats and the Republicans don’t bother to run a candidate in many districts), but Republicans were elected as governor for over 15 years. The reputation of the Democratic party in the state has taken some hits lately because of scandals and high taxes during an economic depression.

  17. #17 Matt
    January 20, 2010

    —The split between right wing moronism and left wing sensible progressivism is close enough to half and half across the US that how a campaign runs in many places, including Massachusetts and Minnesota, matters more than any other single factor.—

    Greg, if this were true, then why do certain regions of the country hold there political character for decades at a time, if not longer?

    Whats all this talk about ‘fly-over country’ and the ‘left coast’? If not a recognition of regional political leanings? Are you arguing the bad campaigining takes place, year after year in New Hampshire, and thats why the Repubs keep winning up there? I can hardly bear to write that sentence without laughing.

    You arent making the following point exactly, but I think you’d agree that pundits place an inordinate amount of importance on Whats Happening Right Now! to the expense of decent analysis all the time. Anyone remember the endless pontificating over Jim Jeffords? Can anyone tell me a single piece of important legislation his defection resulted in (or blocked)?

    So yes Id agree generally the S. Brown election should probably not be read as a strict referendum on Obama’s policies, but nor should it be dismissed as merely bad campaigning either. If the house Dems want to win in Nov, theyd better do a deeper analysis than that.

  18. #18 jolly
    January 20, 2010

    Stephanie Z, I know and agree that the healthcare problem in this country is huge and has wide ranging effects. I just think that most people at any given time feel OK about their health care. At this time, most people don’t feel safe when it comes to their job or the economy and how that may affect them. Healthcare only becomes an emotional issue when it directly affects a person (and they recognize that), while at this time, the overall fear of the economy is much more emotionally loaded. Obama moved way to the right as soon as he started talking to people in WA DC which is far to the right of most of the rest of the population. He started the healthcare debate by moving far to the right before proposing anything and then he fought to get the rest of the Dems to also move to the right. Why was Bush and Co. able to pass all the nasty bills they passed? The Dems won’t stand up to any principles in general partly because their leader doesn’t. So far Obama is a huge fail. I haven’t checked but I don’t think FDR got social security passed before he started to get people to work again to start to control the banks to give people hope and THEN they trusted him enough to pass good laws.

  19. #19 Greg Laden
    January 20, 2010

    Greg, if this were true, then why do certain regions of the country hold there political character for decades at a time, if not longer?

    You are right that there are regional differences, obviously. But the difference from region to region has become over the last few decades very small except in a few states where there has been very little movement in or out.

    So we’ll see a right Republican Senator from Massachusetts only after we see a moderate Dem Senator from Montana!!!!

    Which we did.

  20. #20 Azkyroth
    January 20, 2010

    I suppose that it feels good to assume that anyone that has different opinions than you and/or votes for the ‘wrong’ candidate is stupid.

    It must feel good to assume that people, who conclude that people who are not both filthy rich and expecting to die of natural causes within the next few years and yet vote for the modern Republican party are stupid, are simply “assuming” things rather than having reached this conclusion by a rational and exhaustive consideration of the available evidence and the arguments, both stated and implied, for and against the various positions involved.

    To avoid actually “assuming” something, I’ll leave it up to you to tell me whether it feels good to assume this because it assuages the deep-seated uneasiness you feel from realizing you’re an utter fucking moron yourself, or whether it feels good to assume this because you’re desperately hoping that if we just pretend all ideas are equally sound and all plans are equally viable and “what guiding vision and policy plan should the government have” is the same kind of question as “what’s your favorite ice cream flavor,” all the NASTINESS will just magically stop.

  21. #21 JasonTD
    January 21, 2010

    Greg,

    The truth is that liberalism is not in a strong majority in Massachusetts, but it is historically a majority, and it is a majority that has been exploitable by an in place party apparatus.

    You’re absolutely right, of course. this Gallup poll shows that a strong majority identifies as or leans Democratic in Mass. (57%) I am not disputing that at all. I know that there was no real change in the dynamics of liberal/moderate/conservative balance in Massachusetts from this election. (Nor was there nationally in 2008, for that matter.) I would also agree that the candidate herself, her poor campaign, and the inability of the state Democratic Party to put up someone better and/or support her properly are a big part of the loss.

    I was mostly responding to the venom from Azkyroth and NewEnglandBob when their version of ‘analysis’ of the election is simply to call the people that voted for Brown morons.