Coakley Concedes, You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet

by: Ian Welsh

Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 21:35


Well, so much for that.

What does this mean?

First of all, this will be taken as meaning HCR must be passed exactly as the Senate Bill.  That’s already clear.  The Democratic reaction to losing Kennedy’s seat will be to do exactly what voters were punishing them for.

In 2010 Democrats will be slaughtered, absolutely slaughtered, because Obama and the senior Democratic leadership does not learn.

In 2012 Obama will become a 1 term president, and a right wing populist will get into power.  That populist will turn out not to be a populist, and will do even stupider things than Obama economically (and may start a war, too).

The job is to prepare for this, to get new members and leadership in in 2014.  Start working on it now.

Because 2014 and 2016 are going to be your last chance.  If the US doesn’t elect people who are willing to do what it takes in those two election years, then the US economy is going to be a smoking ruin, far worse even than it is now.

This group of Dems have proved they can’t learn.  Fortunately, and yes, I do mean fortunately, they are going to be swept out of power.  Yes, they’ll be replaced by Republicans who are marginally worse, but that will give you your one chance to fix America.

Up to you if you’re up for it.  Good luck.
Ian Welsh :: Coakley Concedes, You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Coakley Concedes, You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet | 44 comments
I guess we should bookmark this post... (0.00 / 0)
I think it's a bit hysterical to be frank, but who knows, maybe you're right.
Yes, bookmark it (4.00 / 5)
I'll eat the crow if I have to. But I expect I'll be missing a meal.
[ Parent ]
To put it another way... (4.00 / 1)
Just 1 year ago no one thought the Republicans could win an election for another 10 years.  Now a Republican won one in one of the bluest states in the country.  To try and project out what this one election means through 2014 is, shall we say, a bit kind of impossible.

It's also not clear to me what you're saying exactly... Would your preference be to just kill HCR, as it seems like many are suggesting now?  I just don't see any good solutions here, but that seems like the worst to me.  Not only will Democrats have failed, they'll also be looked at as doing absolutely nothing.

[ Parent ]
Understatement of the night (4.00 / 3)
This post has the feel of someone who's about to pull a Hunter S. Thompson as he types.

Demockracy.com

[ Parent ]
Appropriate Video for Tonight. (0.00 / 0)
  "Somebody to Love" with clips from "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas."
[ Parent ]
Oops. (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Geez (4.00 / 2)
should I take the cyanide pill now or wait until after the midterms?  
All hope isn't lost yet (4.00 / 3)
I'm working on completing my Political Studies bachelor and then on to a masters. I plan on entering politics myself. "Regular" people need to learn the ropes by volunteering on campaigns and then run themselves. Replace the corrupt politicians.

Extraordinary progressive star in the making
Good for you (4.00 / 1)
Would you consider running in 2010, even as a minimalist candidate? See the Full Court Press

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com
[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 2)
I'm interning on the Peter Corroon campaign right now just to get exp. I'd rather wait until I have a degree and more local exp and face time with my community. I believe in being fully prepared unlike several politicians. I need all the exp I can get, I think I live in the reddest state in the country.

Extraordinary progressive star in the making
[ Parent ]
polysci will teach you to be a (4.00 / 1)
purveyer of conventional wisdom.  Avoid it and study history, or philosophy.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
studying emprical data is going to make you weak and prone to repeating washingonian truisms
[ Parent ]
If you want to do something in 2014 ... (4.00 / 1)
Because 2014 and 2016 are going to be your last chance.

... then it's time for the Full Court Press now.  Time to start primarying House members (why the House, because it's easier).  If they don't support:

WPA-style jobs program
Medicare for all
Repeal the Hyde amendment, oppose Nelson/Stupak
Repeal DOMA, DADT, support gay marriage
U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan

... then they get a primary.  Are we waiting for the Dems to do something really bad?  Any House member who voted for Stupak has done something really bad.  Any Democrat who funds the war in Afghanistan has dome something really bad.   We keep saying we're gonna get them some day if ...

Well, if... has happened and some day is today.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

This (4.00 / 5)

This group of Dems have proved they can't learn.  Fortunately, and yes, I do mean fortunately, they are going to be swept out of power.  Yes, they'll be replaced by Republicans who are marginally worse, but that will give you your one chance to fix America.

is frankly one of the dumbest things I've read in quite some time... And I say that as someone who made the same argument in 2000 and voted for Nader. Do you really think that Sarah Palin or Mike Hukabee would only be "marginally worse" than the current administration? Really?

(Not to mention that your analysis, in terms of politics doesn't really hold up very well--Coakley was a bad candidate who basically blew off the campaign, which, as the candidate, is her job to win, first and foremost.)  

And (4.00 / 1)
while I have my complaints about the administration, leadership, etc., it seems awfully self-centered and incredibly silly to say we should give up on doing anything positive for the next four years--say, get better senators, representatives, governors, etc. elected in 2010--and just wait for some ideologically pure people who you agree with.
[ Parent ]
You're absolutely right (0.00 / 0)
The Full Court Press is a great plan to do something positive, building long-term infrastructure around a program that is not ideologically pure, but in the mainstream of the Democratic base.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
Dumb, eh? (4.00 / 8)
So let me get this straight. The Dems pulled this same stupid corporatist shit in 92-94 with the same kind of disastrous result we're contemplating here. They then get finally Congress back in 06 and the White House in 08- only to pull the same old shit, kicking their loyal voters in the nads and giving independents NOTHING to show that Dems have anything to offer them. And it's IAN who's dumb for pointing this out? I don't think so. I'm afraid the room-temperature IQ belongs to your good self.
[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 1)
On second thought, we should just give up until 2014 because we didn't get what we want all at once. That will be a much more effective strategy.

As I stated, pretty clearly, I think the statement that we should cheer on the defeat of Democrats--who I agree, I'd like to see be more progressive and stronger--because fuck it, then we'll get a republican and in 2014 and 2016, we might be able to get someone who is more progressive, is destructive and self-centered. That's it.

There are those of us--and apparently, that list doesn't include you or Ian--who are capable of both being the emotion angry while simultaneously maintaining the desire to be productive.

[ Parent ]
It doesn't really matter (4.00 / 2)
what you think, because independent voters are going to insure this outcome in any case. How do you expect a party to retain power if it spits on its most loyal constituencies while offering no deliverables that could win over independents (or worse yet threatening deliverables, like the Senate health "reform" bill, that actively alienate them too)?

I can't speak for Ian, but I'm perfectly calm. Things are playing out more or less the way I've been resigned to for some months now. I don't like what's happening one bit, but that dislike doesn't entitle me to pretend it isn't happening.

[ Parent ]
Well, it doesn't really matter (4.00 / 2)
what you think either, to be honest. And I harbor no illusions that it matters what I think.

But as a practical matter, I expect people to act like adults and be practical--to recognize that even with a majority, we won't get everything we want and to work constructively to get the things we want over time. I mean, if you don't get your way at work do you just give your boss the finger and storm off? Of course not. You accept some compromises and work to convince him/her on other issues.

We, as progressives, have not gotten as much as we'd like out of our majorities. We can work within the system, hope/work/donate to progressive candidates and accept that we might get bills--like the health bill--that are imperfect but significantly better than the status quo, and support them despite not getting them exactly the way we'd like. Or we can storm off until 2014 because everything didn't go our way. I think the latter option is very, very dumb.

[ Parent ]
Remember that the definition of insanity (4.00 / 5)
is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result next time. The Dem leadership is insane. So are those who really think a shit sandwich of a health insurer bailout bill can be sold as "incremental health care reform" that's "significantly better than the status quo" (more like significantly worse, in reality.) The voters in Mass. have just told you exactly what they think of that strategy. Will you learn from that, or not?
[ Parent ]
umm (0.00 / 0)
was there an ad about health reform? No. Was the campaign national? No. Did Coakley run a terrible campaign? Absolutely. Is Obama's approval still above 50? Yes.

On what evidence do you base your assertion that the voters have rejected the senate bill because it isn't progressive enough?

[ Parent ]
They rejected it (4.00 / 4)
because the Dems couldn't explain to them how this complicated mess would help them. That's because it WOULDN'T help most of them and would violate Obama's no-middle-class-tax-increase pledge. Note that the Senate bill is well to the right of even the Romneycare that Mass. already has.

By the way Coakley's poll numbers started dropping like a rock at the same time the Senate passed this piece of crap (which Coakley strongly endorsed). Coincidence? Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
Coakley's numbers also dropped after Christmas when she decided to more or less stop campaigning. I mean, you have a very shaky correlation and a very strong belief.

But whatever.  That's not my point.  My point is that we should probably be constructive rather than destructive, which means not blowing off the next four years because you didn't get everything you want all at once.

[ Parent ]
as an aside (0.00 / 0)
I do think the national party, and the administration, deserve some blame for screwing up here--though not nearly as much blame as Coakley.
[ Parent ]
It's EXACTLY because progressives didn't get what they want... (4.00 / 1)
...that Dems are in trouble now! Because th progressive parts of th bill would have delivered something to the people. The public option would have offered everybody an alternative to horrible privat insurances. And even the medicare extension would still have been a net positive for large parts of the population. Also, Dorgan's drug importing bill!

But, no, everything that was remotely progressive, and would have been a serious change of the system, was thrown out, by corrupt lawmakers who are in bed with the insurers. What remained was th same old same old crappy insurance, bolstered with about one hundred billion taxpayer dollars evey single year! We know the bailout isn't popular, so how did anybody expect this insurance company bailout to become popular? It can't!

So, staying the course now is no option at all! If you have put your hand in the wringer, you have to stop turning th handle, especially when you've already lost one finger. You don't ignore the pain and try to get the rest of the arm through it. That would be madness.

So, we need change now! That's what, by all acounts, the voters wanted. The crappy bill simply can't stay the same. Again, staying the course is NOT AN OPTION!

[ Parent ]
Oooh Kay (0.00 / 0)
So now the abject failure of our educational system for the last 40 years has finally come home to roost in the state where the most thoughtful people are assumed to live.  Looking at the county map on NYT it's clear that the towns that voted for Martha are, basically, where the rich people live.  She was definitely not a blue collar candidate, and that was primarily because she had not a single drop of style or charisma and was just simply too preppy for words.

Clearly what she said, and the approach to governance and coexistence that she represented, had no impact on the people she needed to get to vote for her.

And that's to a great extent because the economy is so bad that people aren't looking for incremental change.  And because there is no consensus around "change" in MA or anywhere else in the country.

And because critical thought is dead throughout the country, even in MA.

So, what to do?  What to do?  What do to?

Well, guys, I hate to break it to you, but Ian's on to something here.  It's bread and circuses if progressives want to have any say at all from now on.  Fire up the bully radio, print up the signs, get the march on DC action going.  Reason has nothing to do with it, it's all feelings from now on.  

If we don't make a racket, if we continue talking about it and signing our little MoveOn petitions and making our little calls to our reps, we're going to get more of the same.

We gotta change our method, make a racket, get outraged, stomp up and down on the call-in radio, bully the bullies.

Or Ian's right, and the picture ain't gonna be pretty.

Medicare for All (4.00 / 3)
Drop this Rube Goldberg contraption of a healthcare bill and entirely drop any pretense of even trying to regulate the all-powerful private insurance industry.

Then see if we can round up at least 51 of the gutless wonders to support opening up medicare to anyone who wants to buy in - whether they are employed, unemployed or self-employed, old or young, healthy and hale or sick and ailing. Subsidize buy-ins for the poor, mandate nothing.

Then carry that nice and simple flag into the fall against the Republicans. Let the Republicans defend leaving us all at the mercy of the bloodsucking private insurance, and let the Democrats promote giving us a choice - a choice even brain-dead tea partiers can understand.  

You say voters were punishing Dems for passing the Senate bill, (4.00 / 3)
I say voters were punishing Dems for not having passed the final bill yet.  If the bill had been finished by Thanksgiving I think this would have gone very differently.

You can argue that voters are outraged about the fine points of policy, but given that Dems turned out and came home in Mass and it was the indies who went R, I'd say with at least as much evidence that voters were outraged that no major legislation of any kind has passed since April while jobs vanish every month.  Passing the health care bill could just as well have been the cure, not the disease.

I understand that YOU don't like the bill, but projecting YOUR feelings onto an entire electorate is poor analysis.  

Neo Naderism (2.00 / 2)
is being offered as an anecdote for the Massachusetts debacle.

I don't predict significant sales.

"anecdote". Hmm, didn't you mean antidote? (0.00 / 0)
Or maybe annex? Yeah, Naderism as an annex to the debacle makes a lot of sense!
:D
[ Parent ]
unfortunately (0.00 / 0)
This group of Dems have proved they can't learn.  Fortunately, and yes, I do mean fortunately, they are going to be swept out of power.

out of office, maybe. out of power in the Democratic Party? not so much.

besides, since "everybody knows" that Obama is a Liberal's Liberal, the lesson that Democratic Party candidates and leadership will learn is that they need to be even more like Republicans, and that the left needs to open their wallets and shut their mouths, because that's always the lesson.

could we turf them out of control of the party? theoretically, it could be done, i suppose. but who is "we"? we as in the people who already favor leftish policies, i just don't think we are really all that big a slice of the party or of the electorate. that slice could grow in response to seeing good results from good policies, but that can't happen until after winning elections.

the other problem is, where are the replacements? who are they? i know it wouldn't be hard to do a better job than these clowns, but we can only vote for actual candidates, not concepts. i mean, we can't even get a liberal candidate to run for Governor in California.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

Put the blame where it belongs: (0.00 / 0)
on the voters.

Look, it isn't hard to understand.  George W. Bush was one of the worst Presidents in history - he lost two wars, at least one of which was completely unnecessary, and the economy collapsed during his watch.  Then, since the election, the Republicans have been mindlessly obstructionist, and frustrated any effort to clean up the disaster they left.

A passing recollection of the past two years is all a moderately intelligent six year old would need to make the right choice in the Mass Senate race.  And there was ONE right choice, and ONE wrong choice.

You can blame the mainstream media, the Democratic leadership, Glenn Beck, or whoever you'd like, but the fault ultimately lies with Americans.  This country is too backwards and uneducated to sustain a functioning government that serves the public good.  It isn't the leadership that doesn't learn.  It's the voters.  

Blaming the voters is always a bad idea, kanzeon! (0.00 / 0)
You may do that in private, but even then, it doesn't help you. You can't change them on the short term, not ven on a medium term. It takes decades for attitudes to change.

So, sry, but blaming the voters is not helpful. You have to work with the stuff you've got. And if you've only got wood as a building material, you shouldn't plan any skyscapers, but think about cottages instead. The goal has to be to deliver something that improves the lifes of the people, not to create any unfinished constructions, even if they may have looked great on paper...

[ Parent ]
Helpful? (0.00 / 0)
You think there's something helpful to be salvaged from this mess?

If the voters are too dumb to understand that electing a Republican in this race means permanent gridlock for three years and no hope of solving anything, I don't see how it matters whether Reid and Pelosi are idiots too.


[ Parent ]
Dems can't afford grdilock for three years, so... (0.00 / 0)
...this puts pressure on them to finally nuke the filibuster. And actually, now that the supermajority is lost, the media has run some stories on how to get rid of the damn thing:
http://news.google.com/news/se...

So, indeed, something good may come out of this desaster. It's a remote possibility, but at least a chance.

[ Parent ]
The Solution (4.00 / 2)
But of course, kanzeon!

The Solution
Bertolt Brecht

After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?



"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Hehehe! A real classic, Paul! (0.00 / 0)
But to my embarassment, I have to admit, I forgot this is from Brecht. I would have bet my buck on Tucholsky. However, both were some sharp guys writing acid stuff in the 20s and later, and shouldn't be forgotten.
[ Parent ]
my god (2.67 / 3)
Did you get an erection while writing this insipid post?  Talk about disaster porn.

What is it with people getting a charge of out predicting doom?  I'm so tired of it.  When people indulge in it, it actually makes them feel powerful.  What the hell is that even about?  I mean, no wonder we can't hold on to power, if half of us are looking for opportunity to excitedly predict it away.  We don't even need Republicans to lose.

Forgive the reality check... (4.00 / 1)
While this election changes the dynamics of the Senate and the passage of health care reform...

Take a deep breath.

Coakley's loss has many reasons.  But what this election did, in reality, was elect a Republican who will face difficult re-election when his voting record becomes clear, and change Democratic control of the Senate from a 20 vote to an 18 vote majority.

And the only reason an 18 vote majority isn't seen as sufficient to pass reform is because leadership lets Republicans block it, and we nod our heads at the wrongheaded notion that 60 votes are required to get anything done.. and accept that even in the best of times, one or two corporatist tools can turn a 60-vote piece of legislation into stomach churning sausage.

What we need to do now is BE LOUD, and put pressure on leadership to take charge of the terms of the debate.  Push back at the media tropes that allow "moderate" Democrats to take cover instead of take a stand.

It is not, as Ian suggests, time to hand in the towel and wait.  This is one election... an election that can be used to pressure Dem leadership to stop being such pansy-assed wimps.  Frankly, it's an opportunity.

sure.. lets all just concede (2.00 / 2)
so now you give a concession speech for Democrats as a whole until 2014?

..and you wonder how it is Republicans can keep winning.. one loss and the progressive movement concedes as a whole not just for the midterms, but even the next presidential race!

amazing.  I've never heard so much defeatist garbage in my life -

seriously, I understand your position, but if you think this is any sort of workable strategy - try applying it to anything in your life.  It's called giving up.. and if that's your position then trade your D for an R, or whatever you need to do - count me out. I will take the worst Democrat over the best Republican every time - and I will never concede any of these battles until the race is done.

A person who talks about how Democrats should be stronger.. and out of the other side of their mouth is saying we should just give up - and you can't figure out how we lose races like this?  weak.  

I can't find "give up" anywhere in Ian's post. (4.00 / 1)
"prepare...get new members and leadership in in 2014."
"Start working on it now."

To me, his analysis of the status quo, particularly of the current state of the DP and its leadership, coupled with his get-to-work-NOW exhortations to focus energy on making necessary changes -- rather than seeking to strengthen and maintain the anti-left, anti-progressive, ever-rightward drift of the Party -- sounds, well, hopeful.  

Exactly. (0.00 / 0)
He's simply saying what we all know- that the party as currently constituted is a dead end that will go through 1994-style self-destruct cycles every time it manages to get into power. And far from counseling despair about that, he's telling us we have to get to work and change the party instead of staying on this lesser-of-two-evils treadmill. That IS a hopeful message, unless you're irrevocably tied to the Dem status quo.
[ Parent ]
sounds like tea partier speak to me (0.00 / 0)
Tea partiers would brand their criticism of Republicans in office as 'hopeful' as well.

Ian's piece is a push against DINO's instead of RINO's, it's the same ideological push just in reverse.  Parties lean towards moderation for a reason, we've lectured the fanatics on the right for their 'cleansing' push, we've told them that this type of behavior doesn't win elections because it shrinks your tent and alienates your base.  Now we see them win a race and so we doubt all our own methodology.  It's typical for the minority to make gains during the mid-terms - it's no cause for panic.  It's also no cause to go into a suicidal far left push for electing candidates - there's still a strong percentage of Americans that consider themselves 'conservative', if you think it will be hard to win elections with middle of the road Dems.. how much harder will it be with ones that are even more liberal? Look at our country, health care reform gets branded socialism - even the most tame of progressive views are attacked as radical.

I say we play it as it lay, we push further left one election at a time - we put pressure on our current representatives - but we already are on this 'lesser of two evil' treadmill that you speak of.. and we actually always will be.  There will never be an ideal Democrat the same as there will never be an ideal Republican - technically I would say Obama was that ideal, until after the election and we learned no one is perfect.

And yes, saying we have to wait until 2014 is 'giving up', no matter how you paint it.  I don't think we should try the 'cleansing' path that Republicans are on - and I don't think we should push for moderates either.. I say we do the smart thing and vote each election one at a time.  We hit the streets and the phones and the blogs every single day - we never count ourselves out.. because we've seen what happens when we are under Republican rule - it's too costly.

I'm still pushing for gains in 2010 - and at worst managing losses.  I'm still planning on Obama's re-election.. most presidents get a second term, mainly because after 4 years with a president you know that tomorrow will be much like yesterday, although there's doubt about a new face being able to do the job.  This is part of how W got re-elected.

I'm just not going to count us out.. and I'm also not going to work on a crop of super-liberal Dems on the idea that they are our only hope.. that's a plan that will not only backfire up til 2014.. it most likely wouldn't win 2014 either.


[ Parent ]
Coakley Concedes, You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet | 44 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox