James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist and communications consultant based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
I awoke this morning in a universe with a quantum signature that differs from that of the universe in which I fell asleep. I know this because it's the only way I can explain last night's Republican victory in the safest Democratic seat in the Senate.
It's just like that episode of Star Trek: TNG, the one in which Worf keeps flitting back and forth between alternate realities, including one where the Borg is practically ruling the universe, Once Riker discovers there are realities in which they aren't, he's willing to sabotage the effort to heal the trans-universe rift so he can escape his impending doom. (That one was called "Parallels.") That's how I feel.
Politics
Comments
I don't think this is all that surprising. Massachusetts elected Republican governors from 1986 to 2002. Plus, a lot of rural Mass is conservative.
Posted by: hardindr | January 20, 2010 2:25 PM
Actually, Jon Stewart's rant was rather prescient.
Posted by: James F | January 20, 2010 2:31 PM
But it was rural MA in the western part of the state that voted for Coakley. See http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/2010/senate/results.html
Posted by: Tim Greenwood | January 20, 2010 2:35 PM
Bob Somerby discusses the election more here http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh012010.shtml#ruminations .
Posted by: hardindr | January 20, 2010 2:45 PM
Massachusetts has indeed elected Republican governors. However, they were all fiscal conservatives and social liberals (or at least agnostic on social issues). Brown is in the teabagger mold and has thrown himself into the birther and climate change denialist camps. This is a very different sort of Republican than Mass. voters have ever elected to statewide office, which may be evidence of it being an anti-Democratic vote, rather than pro-Republican, so to speak.
Since Coakley kept her campaign pretty quiet until the end, voter angst about Democrats not immediately following through on individuals' pet concerns may have been a driving factor. She ended up with no message to counteract that, and so Democrats feel obliged to tear themselves apart. Over the course of Brown's term, the voters may realize what a terrible vote they made against their own interests, but we'll see.
Posted by: Kirk | January 20, 2010 3:30 PM
The GOP made it all about healthcare reform in a state that pretty much has what the rest of the nation is shooting for. They have their healthcare and were more likely to resent paying more to cover the states who were unwilling to go through the grief they did to get it.
Healthcare in MA isn't a big issue. Which means everything else moves up the priority list. Had the issue of healthcare led the ticket in Mississippi, where the state system sucks, it would have decided the election. Of course the GOP wouldn't make it about healthcare in rural Mississippi. They would substitute issues and make it about 'the gay agenda' or some other hot button which they can flog into victory.
It's like Limbaugh going to one of the bluest of the blue states with one of the most socially integrated healthcare systems of any state and crowing about how 'the system works'. Yes, Hawaiian healthcare is pretty good. Even better if you have a lot of money.
Had he vapor locked in rural Mississippi he would have used the money to get to a state with a better system. And then bragged about how good it was there.
Posted by: Art | January 20, 2010 5:35 PM
This is why the political left should've gotten behind and supported the climate and health legislation from last year. We could've had a record of accomplishment that could have saved the 60th Democratic vote in the Senate, and had better legislation than whatever we'll have to deal with now.
The conservative D's are the main problem, obviously, but the left wing opposition on climate and health care bills was a huge mistake.
I suppose James might disagree.
Posted by: Brian Schmidt | January 20, 2010 7:41 PM
Since when has the current administration got any advantage from actually having those 60 votes? Seriously? If it made all that difference, they'd have all their signature legislation passed by now wouldn't they?! As it is, it really makes no difference because instead of all those 60 (or 59 now) pulling together, they're all in it for themselves and in order to get any legislation passed the Dems are still going to be forced into pandering to the lowest common denominator. This election has made no difference whatsoever to anything except to demonstrate what a bunch of blind, gullible, and easily led sheep the electorate is.
Posted by: IanW | January 21, 2010 12:56 PM
No, they wouldn't. If the democrats were a unified voice then sure, the supermajority would've meant the could've moved forward much more quickly, and with a better bill.
If the dem had won this election, then reconciliation of the House and Senate bills would've moved forward, and it would be on Obama's desk in a month, most likely.
There is a bit of a bright side in this ... now that they don't have 60 in the Senate, they can stop sucking Lieberman's d**k in order to keep his vote. They can, and should, kick him to the curb on this issue.
Posted by: dhogaza | January 21, 2010 1:20 PM
I apologize for coming in so late on this, but the phrase, "the safest Democratic seat in the Senate," suggests that Mr. Hrynyshyn isn't doing his homework. While Ted Kennedy occupied that seat, it certainly was the safest, but with his death, he could no longer occupy and secure it. Keep in mind that Massachusetts has elected several Republican governors of late. In fact prior to the current Democratic governor, the most recent Democratic governor of that state was Michael Dukakis, and he was none too recent.
And the undeniable fact is that the Democratic candidate ran a textbook-awful campaign. Any party can lose any seat if the candidate makes so many dreadful mistakes.
The political analysis isn't that complex, and it doesn't require other-worldly explanations.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 14, 2010 8:10 PM