82 Comments - Ravenswood Right Winger - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 11:18 am: I think GOPers were energized before Brown’s win. I do agree with Marin that there will need to be some sort of truce between Kirk and conservatives in order for him to win. - Champaign Dweller - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 11:22 am: I think some national Democrats will pull back on some of the very liberal bills pending. As for the GOP, there’s real, new energy that was missing before. I also think that in light of all of the money Brown raised from outside his state, we’ll see more local races become nationalized. - well - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 11:27 am: I think this proves that conservatives are willing to support a Republican candidate that can win, and is a good fit for the state, even if that means he doesn’t toe the party line completely. Remember, Scott Brown is pro-choice and was attacked by tea partiers early in his campaign for being insufficiently conservative. My hope is that this victory will show recalcitrant conservatives here in Illinois that there is something to be gained by supporting a Republican, even if he is socially moderate. I also think Republicans here, in Delaware, and in Nevada, would love the symbolism of, two years after Obama’s election, Republicans taking back his seat, Joe Biden’s seat, Ted Kennedy’s seat, and Harry Reid’s seat. And let’s face it, the only way we are going to pull that off is if we nominate Mark Kirk and really get behind him. - culatr - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 11:33 am: The GOP victory in Mass. ensures that all spending records will be broken for the Obama seat election. The IL GOP should be very happy with this development. If the National GOP comes through with a real GOTV effort, the IL GOP could pick up a couple of statewide offices here as wellas the Senate seat. - Joe McCarthy and the Red Scarecrows - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 11:35 am: The parallels between Scott Brown and Mark Kirk are striking. Both are pro-choice and socially moderate. Both are reservists. Both are running against the Democrat’s health care bill. While not exactly the same, the local political dynamics also warrant comparison. Massachusetts has a very unpopular governor which certainly played a factor, with complete one-party rule. If Quinn wins, that’s what we’ll have, coupled with the Blago trial, coupled with Roland Burris still being in office, coupled with the baggage of the nominee. The pundits are already writing the narrative for Kirk. - Red Ranger - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 11:36 am: Things will certainly be a lot closer and more interesting than elections over the past 8 or so years. The IL GOP is excited and energized and swing voters may be looking for a new choice. I think its really hard to judge without knowing how Obama will factor into IL. No matter what, he will be more popular in IL than in the rest of the country. Will Obama returning home to embrace the Dem Gov and Sen candidates be enough to save them? While Obama has struck out in NJ, VA and now MA, I just dont think that will happen here. I think Obama may have some extra time on his hands come campaign season this fall, and a few return trips home may be enough to save the IL Dems. - shore - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 11:40 am: The national gop hasn’t invested a cent in kirk since 2000. He’s got plenty of money and will have no trouble sending Alexi back to the mean streets of the posh east bank club after blago implodes. DC welfare wont help us, we need to develop our own party machinery so that we can compete going forward. This is a wealthy state with lots of money. The big thing is that the GOP is once again a big tent party. As some guy named miller has said, the gop started having trouble in 1994 with the gingrich revolution which made the national parties image the southern christian right. GIngrich is gone, jerry falwell is dead, ralph reed is preparing to be deposed and we have a black republican from a blue state as our party chairman. As well for the first time since 1960 the democrat president is a liberal from outside of the south meaning the democrats are conceding the middle and giving republican moderates room to exist in the center on things like spending as this guy did. I still think my party is in deep deep stuff (kirks district is as democrat as massachusettes) and that this might be more of a short term band-aide delaying a longer term problem which is that we are still 20th century, but its nice to see political sunshine again. - cassandra - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 11:40 am: I watched Coakley’s concession speech and the woman has no charisma whatsoever. No emotional connection. Plus that vacation in December didn’t help. I’m not a fan of the current WH administration but their implied assertion that Coakley, not the Democrats, lost the race, is right on. Of course, they should have seen this coming. Where was Rahm? Where was the fabled David Axelrod. If these guys are going to meddle in state and local elections, shouldn’t they be doing a better job. I listened to Brown’s acceptance speech and I didn’t find him all that compelling a speaker either. However, he is good looking with a great-looking family (including the basket-ball-playing daughter), projects a lot of energy, and that truck trip no doubt helped. And he’s new to a national political scene that is always looking for the next new face. He’ll probably be running for Prez next. It’s happened. Alas, in Illinois, where are the good-looking charismatic Republicans with the energy to drive across Illinois in a truck or even to give a barn-raising speech. Democrats either. Alexi is energetic but a bit tainted and these days his ties to Obama could be a negative. David Hoffman-really smart but no charisma. Mark Kirk—yawn. Pat Quinn–poor guy, he means well. Hynes–yawn. In sum, with a primary in less than two weeks, it too late for anybody on either side to channel Scott Brown. So, no effect on Illinois. - Deep South - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 11:45 am: I was at the senate debate in Carbondale last night. It was sort of a snore-fest. The whole health care issue/debate never even came up, which I found kinda strange. The Democratic nominee is gonna have to ramp up the energy against the GOP nominee and do some heavy campaigning - statewide. This time, it will be the GOP running on a message of change. Unless the Dems can prove they can affect change, specifically in the economy and in the unemployment numbers, the GOP may well win the election. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 11:49 am: I am not surprised by this turn of events. The next few months will be an interesting time. It is amusing to watch the politocos and pundits who proclaim the death of any particular political party. The dems were eulogized by the GOP after the ‘94 mid-term elections and surged back later on. Now it is the GOP’s turn. It is a predictable response to a strong legislative program. I suppose the back and forth is normal but I have enough years behind me that I see the pattern. I wonder if they do? It appears that the health care bill in its’ current state is dead. The legislative tactics available to the dems don’t seem to have much chance given the new landscape. A steamroller is gathering speed and the dems are caught like Judge Doom. An opportunity was lost by the dems. If it was chutzpah on the part of the CoS or Reid and Pelosi they blew it by assuming they had no opposition. This election in Mass was a complete surprise to everyone (including the candidates). A perfect storm. Amazing. Obviously it has remifications here in Illinois. I don’t think PQ can respond before he is bounced. Hynes could pull off the upset and the polls show much movement in his direction. The throw the bums out mentality will effect the whole dem party, not just candidates even if they can prove they are not “insiders with clout”. The state and national contest coming up this year are the GOPs to lose. - Objective Dem - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 11:53 am: Unfortunately I think the dems are allowing themselves to be caught in the trap of allowing this race to be about Obama’s agenda rather than two politicians. The reality is Coakley was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign. Part of the blame for the bad campaign is shared with the Democratic Senate election committee and Mass Democratic party leadership. The big question in my mind is was the vote in anger over Health Care and too liberal of an agenda or was it over Wall Street and too conservative of an agenda. - Niles Township - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 11:53 am: No effect in the primary. Potential lingering pluses for Kirk come November. - Montrose - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 11:58 am: I do think, unfortunately, the Brown victory gives the Republicans momentum they did not have before. That being said, there are two - potentially three - big differences between last night and November: 1) Special elections and general elections are different. Who is on the rest of the ballot plays a big role in the general. 2) The health care debate should be in a very different place. Whatever is going to get passed will be done for several months before November. It won’t be a conversation about “will x candidate vote for Obama’s health care plan,” but something less tangible about potentially repealing something in the future if the opportunity arises. 3) The other possible factor is where the economy is at. If - and it is a big if - the unemployment rate is dropping for the months leading up to November, people are going to feel very different about the policies of those currently in office. The Dems will have a very different narrative they can use to their advantage. - CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 12:00 pm: Which party can equal the “Curt Schilling is a Tankee Fann: gaffe? We betting on the ones who beg new Foxette, CaribouBarbie, to campaign here. MA and national Dems seemed to sleepwalk in MA. Hopefully they will wake up. If not IL Ds will need to rely on IL Ds — bad website and all. BTW I thought StateWideTom was only amped up on OutsiderAndy….is he moving on????? - JP - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 12:04 pm: None. Coakley might have run the most inept insider campaign in a huge outsider year. She also insulted the Red Sox and basically came out against motherhood and apple pie. If any Incumbent candidate in any office just showed up and kept their mouth shut, they would have run a better “campaign” than Coakley. - Angry Republican - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 12:06 pm: Very little impact in the primary, and none in the general. November is so far away nobody will even remember Brown’s win; the only thing that will matter in November is the public perception of the economy. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 12:06 pm: The mood in the country is much more anti-incumbent than it is anti-Obama or anti-Democrat. Mark Kirk is a sitting Congressman, I don’t see how he benefits that much from Congress’s current job approval rating: somewhere around 25%, with the latest Pew poll giving Congressional Republicans a 27% job rating and Democrats a 35% job rating. - Gregor - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 12:07 pm: It may light a fire under the dems here to get their house in order and put more effort into the base. But both parties this year in IL are so fragmented and polarized, it’s anybody’s guess what will happen. I think though the lesson dems take away from this is, might as well forget bi-partisan gestures and just crush your enemies and ram through your agenda as soon as you get the superior numbers, because they will do it to you every chance they get. The moderates and independents will now be sharply targeted on either side to fall in with the base or face ouster. Mike Madigan has often ben compared to a chess grand master. But you don’t win the championship by only playing in such a way as to never give up a piece, the best you can do at that strategy is stalemate, every time. You have to risk losing some pieces, even sacrificing some, to get into a position to checkmate and win. Blago is gone; now is the time to pass the capital budget and some taxes to pay for it. Or what’s the point of all these chess pieces just gathering dust? - train111 - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 12:08 pm: It means simply that both parties are going to have to work for victory in November. The Democrats as the party in control can not rest on their laurels and expect to win because Illinois is a ‘blue’ state. Dem primary voters really need to be careful in whom they select. A bad ticket can really mean disaster in November. It also shows the Illinois GOP that they can win. The big ‘if’ for them is whether or not they can get their act together and unify behind a single person as was done in Massachussetts. Brown is not a ‘tea party’ type Republican, but GOPers nationwide of all stripes united behind him. The Illinois GOP is going to have to unite behind the people tehy nominate this year in order to win. No circular firing squad as we’ve seen in the past. train111 - Will County Woman - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 12:12 pm: As a moderate dem, I have no sympathy for Barack Obama whatsoever. he lost me when he nominated Arne Duncan education secretary, so Obama lost me very early last year. Thankfully Obama will be a one-term president (ala Jimmy Carter). the past three elections (NJ & Virgina guv races, and yesterday’s Mass senate race) have been clear repudiations of the Chicago Way that slithered into the White House last year. It’s bad enough that we have in it Chicago, Cook County and throughout Illinois government, but to bring it to a national level, and international level, for the nation and all the world to see? Geeze. The Chicago Way is neither good nor anything of which to be proud, so no wonder why it hasn’t been well received. Mark Kirk will be the next U.S. senator from Illinois, and we are likely to have a republcian governor. The pressure is on for the IL GOP to go with a safe guv pick and get it right, though. I’m still jealous of NJ. Chrisite will do a fine job, as the people of NJ could not have made a better pick—they got a really good governor. - Will - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 12:14 pm: Senate Democrats will react in one of two ways. They’ll let Republicans and conservative Dems convince them to fearfully back away from passing any major legislation. Or, they’ll take it as a sign that they need a positive platform to run on in 2010 and actually deliver on the mandate voters gave them in ‘08. The Democratic Party gave Mass nothing to vote for. They put up a bland candidate and backed away from the kind of health care reform that a majority of the public support. Voters have seen one consistent message from Democrats since 1992: Vote for us all you want but we won’t deliver on our platform. Party leaders are running out of excuses with significant majorities in both chambers. Voters aren’t really all that stupid. They aren’t going to keep showing up for a party that does nothing even when given a golden opportunity. If the Senate can’t pass major health care and climate change reform in the next year then Democrats should expect their base to stay home. Angy conservatives will still show up in large numbers and independents will see that only one party has a platform they’ll stand behind. - JC - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 12:25 pm: If anything, the effect in Illinois will probably be less than the rest of the country because our primary is so unbelievably early. While the electorate has been clearly angry for a while, potential candidates might not have known how angry until Massachusetts last night. Too late for potential candidates in Illinois! Filing is closed and, if you’re a Republican, you may have missed a great opportunity to run in an even more favorable year than anyone expected. I will admit to not knowing much about candidate recruitment by Republicans at the state rep and state senate level, but how many Dems are breathing a sigh of relief (though I wouldn’t be all that relieved) that there isn’t a “strong” Republican running in the opposite primary that would scare them to death in November? For that matter, did Republicans recruit candidates who can take on Bean and Hare effectively? Sure, the political winds were blowing in the Republican’s favor last night, but he was also clearly a very good candidate. I think - for the most part - you need both. How many ballot lines will have that? So, while the mood of the electorate should help Repubs at the statewide level, I suspect that the state GOP won’t be able to take full advantage of the wind at their backs. - Watching closely - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 12:28 pm: The one asterisk I’d offer here is that Mark Kirk, despite his considerable positives, is not going to fly as the “truck driving, average guy” like Scott Brown did in MA. It’s possible that one of the GOP Gov candidates could pull that off, but not all of them. If the undercurrent of middle class discontent was a key factor that propelled Brown to frontrunner status, and his ability to connect with the middle class scored him the victory itself, Kirk and the GOP candidates for governor have some real work to do (not that I’m suggesting the Dems are in much better shape). - well - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 12:43 pm: How is Kirk going to have trouble portraying himself as middle class? He habitually ranks towards the bottom in Congressional net worth surveys, and his likely opponent is Alexi Giannoulias - a privileged rich boy if there ever was one. I think Kirk will do fine. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 12:44 pm: I read somewhere (Ambinder?) that Brown did 66 campaign events to Coakley’s 19. Lazy doesn’t usually translate into victory. So Brown, the former Cosmo centerfold, is the latest good-looking empty vessal put forward by the GOP. A pro-choice Republican, he raised $12 million on-line. Good for him, he ran a good race. But unless the Dem nominee is in a coma, I expect a more energetic candidate in Illinois. And Mark Kirk has a record, unlike Senator elect Brown. A long record… MA is instructive on several levels, but many of those won’t apply in Illinois come November. It’s still a very good day for the GOP. Enjoy the victory. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 12:46 pm: ===I read somewhere (Ambinder?) that Brown did 66 campaign events to Coakley’s 19=== That’s correct. The number was since the primary. She was obviously a terrible candidate. Then again, she was also a statewide official. Bizarre. - Ghost - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 12:56 pm: Obama’s approval rating in MA is 60%; so voters who approve of obama voted against the dem canidate. More interesting, the ILGOP announcement asserts MA dems truning out for the GOP…but the number of votes for the Dem canidate in MA exceeded the number of voters in the Dem base. I think its interesting that the race was as close as it was, the dem canidate was horrible. - Kyle Boller's Clipboard - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 12:56 pm: I don’t think the Massachusetts is that relevant because a lot’s going to happen in the next nine months, and if any of what happens changes the mood of the state and/or country, that will mean much more in November than what our mood is now. The Massachusetts result is a good reminder that whatever the party trend of a state, good candidates generally beat bad candidates. Mark Kirk will be a good candidate; not sure how any of the Dems in that race will do. On the governor side, it doesn’t seem like any of the candidates on either side have particularly distinguished themselves in the primary, so who knows how the primary winners will do in a general. And, barring some major change in the country’s direction, the anti-incumbent message will remain powerful. Republicans ran the state for a long time, and then people thought they weren’t doing a good job and kicked them out. Now Democrats have been running the state for a while, and while not all of what’s gone wrong is the fault of our state elected leaders, it’d be hard to say that they’ve done a bang-up job dealing with their challenges; people may be understandably ready for a new direction. In some ways the best case scenario for the Dems is for Hynes to win the primary while Quinn wears the jacket for a horrific budget; Hynes then has to distance himself from it all and hope that the Republican candidate doesn’t run a great campaign. Failing that (and that’s a lot of what-ifs), the D’s probably lose the seat. - Segatari - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 1:00 pm: The other thing was, Coakley was 30 points ahead. She did extremely poorly in the debates and her campaign workers were violent thugs. Self-destructed yes, but her expressed viewpoints turned a lot of people off and certainly letting the Dems keep a filibuster-proof majority was a bad idea. The Dems are already looking for a Rino Republican Senator to switch parties. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 1:03 pm: Coakley/Brown will have no impact in Illinois. She may have been the worst candidate of all time. Rupert’s guy in the Boston Herald said she was the only way the GOP could win in Mass. Not only did she insult the Red Sox, but Fenway Park, too. She deserved to lose. That said, you can make the argument that Illinois Dems have it coming, too. Kirk is in a good spot, but those GOP gubernatorial candidates are going to have to run hard to the center after the primary. - budget boy - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 1:17 pm: The impact will be significant. The party out of office in mid-term elections usually picks up 5% across the board in congressional races across the country. The races in Virginia, NJ and Mass. indicate that the number may be as high as 10% — perhaps 15% in certain districts. As a result, the following will happen: 1. Cook will need to redo most of his map. Lean Republican seats become Safe Republican seats; Competitive seats become Lean Republican; Lean Democrats seats are now Competitive. 2. PAC Money for dem candidates will be considerably less then it would have been. And money for Republicans will increase. Perception is reality. 3. 1 and 2 feed off of each other, creating a downward cyle. 4. The downward cycle will continue until, Dems reconsider whether health care should be their top domestic agenda item. There are only 2 thing voters care about this year — jobs and government spending. Continue pushing for the biggest government spending program in the history of the world at your own peril. Change is coming in the form of more republicans. The magnitude of the change is up to the dems. If you want to keep talking about healthcare — fine by us. We will happily stay on message talking about the economy and jobs and our efforts to block massive government spending. See you in November. - siriusly - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 1:23 pm: What happened in MA has little to do with our race. Kirk has been the favorite here since before Ted Kennedy died. The only thing you can say about the MA race is that it shows that the enormous string of 2010 Republican victories has begun. But frankly Rich, you and I have been foretelling this for months. Well before we ever heard of Scott Brown. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 1:23 pm: Budget boy, I think you’re Cook analysis is probably correct. But you do understand how healthcare reform is directly linked to reduced government spending as well as more competitive businesses, don’t you? Healthcare reform is the singlest biggest economic issue facing the country. I can’t wait for the GOP to fillibuster the bill, which hopefully now will more closely resemble the House version, which is vastly superior to the Senate’s watered-down bill. What did compromise get the Dems in the Senate? Nada. It’s time for the Dems to double down on healthcare and triple-dog-dare McConnell and the GOP to fillibuster this. - Pat collins - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 1:30 pm: The mood in the country is much more anti-incumbent Lets hope that many D politicians think so. I surely bet M. Madigan does not, and is planning how to handle the general differently that he had been thinking before. It impacts IL in that Brown: 1) Worked hard. Even with not a lot of money, he kept at it. That will encourage many. 2) He did not insult any of his base. He played up where he agreed with them, and minimized areas of disagreement. He even stated he’d vote for Judges who might overturn R v W. Surely there is a lesson here. 3) He did not sit back and take attacks, he strongly identified and defined himself early on. He responded calmly to attacks, and did not ignore them. This is a HUGE lesson learned for IL Rs. Lets hope they take it to heart. 4) He did not hesitate to define his position on key areas of concern to the electorate. He stated plainly he would vote against the current health bill, and that reform was needed, but not that version of it. He also denounced the plan to try the Christmas bomber in courts, as opposed to Military commissions. Talk about what the public wants to hear! get behind Mark Kirk Well, yes, I agree, but the other part of the deal is no more Kay Hatchers pushed by the establishment, either. - lincolnlover - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 1:42 pm: I voted for Obama and was willing to forgive some of his earlier liberal leanings. But, he promised to end pay-for-play politics. So what about all that money that Nebraska and Louisiana got for voting for the health bills? He also promised to be bi-partisan (at least as much as was possible). Looks like the Republicans might as well pack up and go home, for as much input as they have had on health care. He promised to fix the economy. Job loss is larger now than a year ago and the stimulus didn’t work. I think independents like me, who voted for Obama, feel lied to and betrayed. When he said “Change you can believe in”, I didn’t think he meant he would change from the middle to the far left!! What does this have to do with Illinois? I have always voted for Dick Durbin. Based on the past year’s performance by Senate Dems and President Obama, I won’t make that mistake again. Time for a Republican. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 1:49 pm: ===He also promised to be bi-partisan (at least as much as was possible). Looks like the Republicans might as well pack up and go home, for as much input as they have had on health care.=== My recollection was that GOP Senator Olympia Snowe was essentailly allowed to gut most of the House bill. The public option was removed, the tax on upper income Americans was removed, the provision that the bill cover 100% of Americans was removed, all key demands of the GOP. So the Democrats offered lots of concessions. How many GOP votes did the bill get in the Senate? 0. It’s hard to negotiate when the other side gets much of what it wants and yet still won’t support the bill. - Objective Dem - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 1:55 pm: Over at Huffington Post they have an article on reasons that dems voted for Brown. A few extracts are below. It looks to me that it is a case of misplaced anger and that Dems should consider pushing harder on Wall Street and Health Care Reform rather than pulling back. “A majority of Obama voters who switched to Brown said that “Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street.” In a somewhat paradoxical finding, a plurality of voters who switched to the Republican — 37 percent — said that Democrats were not being “hard enough” in challenging Republican policies. The poll also upends the conventional understanding of health care’s role in the election. A plurality of people who switched — 48 — or didn’t vote — 43 — said that they opposed the Senate health care bill. But the poll dug deeper and asked people why they opposed it. Among those Brown voters, 23 percent thought it went “too far” — but 36 percent thought it didn’t go far enough and 41 percent said they weren’t sure why they opposed it.” - lincolnlover - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 1:58 pm: It would only be negotiation if both sides had input. The Democrats only involved the few Republicans they thought might be persuaded. And what is Olympia Snow saying now? No way. If the Dems truly wanted Republican support, then they would have started out by involving top Rep leaders in their preliminary meetings instead of treating it like a Democrats-only party that you had to be invited to attend. And, yes, that would have been completely different from the way it is normally done (by either party). But that is what Obama promised. He did not deliver. - Objective Dem - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 2:11 pm: To build on my last post, there is something paradoxical going on. The progressive part of the democratic party is mad that Obama and Congress isn’t liberal enough so they voted for a Republican. In Illinois, the Dems need to point people the right direction or they will also get hurt by the misdirected anger. - Judgment Day Is On The Way - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 2:15 pm: Impacts down the road for IL: 1) Normal voters looks to be unsettled, if not downright unhappy with the way things are going. Ideologues (either side) seem to turn most of us off. In a number of ways, Scott Brown (MA) is not going to be your typical Republican. Mark Kirk appears to cut from close to the same style. Plus for him. 2) Incumbents are going to have a harder road for this next election. Voters aren’t hot angry, but cold angry - lot of it is about economics. And it goes across party lines. I know recently a case where in a contested Republican primary for US House seat held by a Democrat, the Republican candidates received a very direct question - Are you a Wall Street Republican or a Main Street Republican? Because if you are a Wall Street Republican, we can turn right around and vote you out the next time. 3) Being seen as being a candidate in the pocket on Wall Street (either party) is probably a serious risk to your election. Doesn’t help Alexi, could help Quinn, certainly can’t help some of the Republican candidates for Governor in either the primary or the general. Time for both parties to get serious and rethink their approaches for November. Just my opinion, and from talking to everyday working folks. - Pat collins - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 2:16 pm: It’s hard to negotiate when the other side gets much of what it wants and yet still won’t support the bill. Well, they learned that trick from the President and how he handled the Kennedy/McCain immigration bill. He got his amendment added on, and STILL voted against it. Which, to credit both Kennedy & McCain, they fought tooth and nail for their grand compromise, and did not sabotage it. - budget boy - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 2:20 pm: 47th — I think the majority of folks who believe healthcare reform (as proposed by the dems) will lead to decreased government spending are on the far left drinking kool-aid. Independents in the middle are quite convinced (as am I) that adding uninsured on to the payroll will be a massive expansion of government and spending. They want to know about your plan to create new jobs and cut government spending. Yes, please double-down on health-care. Your rigid adherence to ideology reminds of the neo-cons who kept pushing the Iraq war as a means to establish a shining new democracy in the middle east. Oh yeah… the indepedents that voted for Brown are really mad that the health care bill did not go far enough. Spin like that is music to my ears because it means that republicans will pick up 45 seats instead of just 25. It’s the economy stupid, forget about health care. - budget boy - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 2:22 pm: my last line was not directed at you 47th… just a slight variation of Clinton’s old mantra - Chathamite - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 2:28 pm: Massachusetts has a pretty bad record of electing women, despite their party affiliation. I do hope that the loss of the MA senate seat drives Illinois democrats to work harder to retain President Obama’s former seat. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 2:29 pm: No offense taken budget boy, and I agree. Except I think that since health care is 1/6th of the economy, you can’t separate the two issues. You’re probably right though, for some reason a majority of Americans can’t seem to grasp this concept. *Sigh* To bring this back to MA, I think Objective Dem makes a good point, some of the Brown voters didn’t think the Senate’s health care bill went far enough. Elections sure produce confusing results, don’t they? - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 2:30 pm: –Oh yeah… the indepedents that voted for Brown are really mad that the health care bill did not go far enough.– The health care bill isn’t an issue in Mass. because Mitt required that everyone buy coverage years ago. - wrmnpolitics - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 2:56 pm: In 2008 voters were drawn to the Obama message of change, and a new way of doing business in Washington. After a year in office, it seems the only thing that has changes are the faces in leadership, with the same old us vs them politics being played, only now the Dems are in charge. Moderate Republicans as well as Independents are now re-evaluating the situtaion and it appears from the vote in Massachusetts that a trend is developing to elect candidates , not so much for their positions and qualifications, but to eliminate the ability of the majority party to dominate legislation and policy. The US is generally a centrist country and will vote to eliminate domination by either the left or right of the political spectrum. - Angry Chicagoan - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 2:57 pm: Massachusetts had the perfect storm. First, let’s start with the state’s political geography. Coakley’s roots are in western Massachusetts. The Berkshires. Stockbridge of Alice’s Restaurant fame. Northampton-Hadley-Amherst. No problems there for her, Chicagoesque margins in many towns despite how awful a candidate she was. Eastern Mass on the other hand, ouch! Mayor Menino in Boston wouldn’t endorse her and according to at least one very detailed post I saw on the DailyKos site wouldn’t even mobilize his precinct organization. Basically the machines in Boston and the inner suburbs let her fry. Second, as we all know, Coakley came across as a misanthropic scold. Basil Fawlty wouldn’t be too much of an exaggeration. She insulted the Red Sox. She insulted retail politics. She insulted the idea you have to work for votes. Third, health care was mostly a non-issue. Massachusetts has already done health care reform, and Scott Brown supports Romneycare. If there’s one state where health care reform will truly not change much, it’s Massachusetts. The focus groups from Brown’s pollster that were released on the net show few comments on health care, other than the occasional concern that the current proposal gives too much to special interests like insurers. Fourth, some liberal interest groups commissioned Research 2000 to do a large-n (large sample size) poll that was conducted yesterday evening in Massachusetts. The poll included close to 4,000 interviews, including subsets of 500 Obama voters who supported Brown, and 500 Obama voters who abstained. Among BOTH subsets, support for a public option was in the 80s, but support for the current health bill was in the low 30s. So yes, I think there’s a clear sense that a more robust health bill that gives less to insurers would sell well with the public. - Objective Dem - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 3:04 pm: Budget Boy, The issue of dems voting for Brown or just sitting out the race because they were mad about Health Care reform not going far enough isn’t spin. It currently appears to be a major factor according to the polls. It does spell problems for the Dems. If they tack to the left they alienate the center. If they stay in the center they lose the left. This is the same as the Repubs having problems with the religious right who will sit on the sidelines or even vote democratic if they think there votes are being taken for granted. - CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 3:11 pm: Before we get all wobbly over the leadership of Gags Brady and the GOP brain trust. Here is a little ditty from the Boston Globe that suggests local/national Ds might not have been ready. With with the awful website, IL Ds should do better Read On …. NEWS ANALYSIS Voter anger caught fire in final days By Brian C. Mooney, Globe Staff | January 20, 2010 Angry Massachusetts voters sent Washington a ringing message yesterday: Enough. Voter anxiety and resentment, building for months in a troubled economy, exploded like a match on dry kindling in the final days of the special election for US Senate. In arguably the most liberal state in the nation, a Republican - and a conservative one at that - won and will crash the Bay State’s all-Democratic delegation with a mandate to kill the health care overhaul pending in Congress. It is difficult to overstate the significance of Scott Brown’s victory because so much was at stake. From the agenda of President Obama and the legacy of the late Edward M. Kennedy to a referendum on the Democratic monopolies of power on Capitol and Beacon hills, voters in a lopsidedly Democratic state flooded the polls on a dreary winter day to turn conventional wisdom on its head. Brown, an obscure state senator with an unremarkable record when he entered the race four months ago, was a household name across the country by the end of the abbrevi ated campaign. Running a vigorous, smart, and error-free campaign, he became a vessel into which cranky and worried voters poured their frustrations and fears, ending the Democrats’ grip on a Senate seat the party has held for 58 years, nearly all by two brothers named Kennedy. Voters were demonstrably unsentimental about keeping alive the spirit of the late Ted Kennedy in electing the next senator. His widow, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, tried to bolster the sagging candidacy of Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley in the closing days, to little effect. Brown’s upset triumph is certain to send shockwaves well beyond the state’s borders and into the fall midterm elections, and will rattle Beacon Hill, where Democrats have absolute power and Governor Deval Patrick is an unpopular incumbent as he faces reelection this November. To be sure, Brown was the beneficiary of the blundering campaign of his opponent, Coakley, who blew a 31-point lead in two months, according to one poll. But in electing Brown, a large segment of the electorate declared that there is little appetite for near-universal national health care……. Brown skillfully made the election a referendum on the issue, nationalizing the race when he repeatedly said he would be the 41st vote in the Senate, enough for the GOP to block the Democrats’ bill. Money poured in from around the country. His campaign had an initial budget of $1.2 million but eventually spent $13 million, about $12 million of which came in via the Internet, a campaign official said last night. Massachusetts passed its own expensive prototype version of universal health care in 2006 and Brown argued that a national version would come at the Bay State’s expense. ……The tinderbox climate in the state was so hospitable that when Brown declared his support for waterboarding - simulated drowning used in interrogating terrorist suspects - Coakley and liberal Democrats barely protested…….In winning, Brown withstood the most blistering assault of late attack ads the state has ever seen. As Coakley began to collapse, her campaign, Democratic Party committees, outside organized labor, and environmental and abortion rights groups bankrolled a desperate multimillion-dollar carpet bombing ad campaign in an effort to halt Brown’s surge. It backfired. The ads, some of which distorted Brown’s record, created a blowback that scorched the Democrat. Coakley entered the campaign as a well-liked politician and ended with high negative poll ratings. She will probably face withering recriminations in Democratic circles, and her weakened status could produce a challenger to her reelection in the fall…..Coakley becomes the state’s fifth sitting or former Democratic attorney general to lose a bid for higher office, following Robert H. Quinn (1974), Francis X. Bellotti (1990), L. Scott Harshbarger (1998), and Thomas F. Reilly (2006), all of whom lost races for governor. The unflinching Brown had much more experience in tough partisan elections than Coakley, and it showed in this campaign. In 2004, the Republican won a close special election and November rematch to capture and then hold his state Senate seat. Coakley, by contrast, won the offices of attorney general and Middlesex district attorney over token Republican opponents…..When he joined the race, Brown figured that even if he lost, it would raise his profile for a future run for statewide office. In winning a low-profile GOP primary, he doggedly roamed the state in his GMC truck, made famous in a later TV ad. But his campaign, with no budget for polling, was flying blind. In mid-December, however, the National Republican Senatorial Committee conducted a poll that showed Brown trailing Coakley by only 13 points but in a dead heat among those voters with the most intense interest in the race. The poll showed potential for his candidacy to catch fire. After Christmas, the Brown campaign aired an ad beginning with black-and-white footage of John F. Kennedy extolling the value of tax cuts and then morphing into Brown completing the speech. It was risky and ridiculed by some Democrats, but it generated plenty of attention, and Coakley’s campaign did not answer with a spot of its own during its five-day run. There was still no response when Brown’s next ad aired, featuring him cruising the state in his pickup truck. It created a sharp contrast with Coakley, whose campaign was still off the airwaves while the candidate remained almost invisible with her run-out-the-clock strategy. Brown worked the talk radio circuit relentlessly to raise his profile. By the time public polls in early January showed the race to be competitive and then tightening, money was gushing in for Brown, as were volunteers, some from out of state. In the final days, his events became bigger and more boisterous, fueling support that would turn the political world upside down. - Objective Dem - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 3:19 pm: I think a lot of the anger is also aimed at Wall Street. I know I’m upset that the they are getting HUGE bonuses after taking us to the edge of a great depression. And the enormous sums of money from the feds (TARP is just a small part of the total bill)aren’t being put back on the street in the forms of loans like they were suppose to. The Dems aren’t doing much to fight back and their policies seem targeted to giving Wall Street money and ignoring the common man. But you have to expect it when Rahm made a fortune in investment banking, Bill Daley is/was with Chase, Alexi is a banker, etc, etc. It doesn’t make me want to vote for the Repubs but I’m pretty rational and recognize the Dems are better than the Repubs on the issue. Other people are more mad than rational. And if I had lost my house or job, I might be so mad that I wouldn’t be rational. As I said earlier, the Dems better start directing this anger the right direction or they will be hurt as part of a general backlash. - budget boy - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 3:25 pm: Angry— The following is music to my republican ears… (i) massachusetts was just a fluke. Voters in states like New Jersey and Virginia still support Obama and Dems — Ohhhh wait, NJ and VA are bad examples — I meant to say Illinois. (ii) coakley ran a horrible campaign - it was her fault (as if massachusetts is such a competitive state, no margin for error for a democratic candidate in that state), and (iii) people are mad because the current health care bill did not go far enough. All those excuses mean that you didn’t get the message sent by independents. Do you really think the indepedent voter who voted for Brown did so because they think Brown will be their champion for a more sweepeing health care bill?? If so, your arrogance and denial are staggering and delightful. Yes, please keep reading and relying upon those liberal “research” polls. Dem leadership wants to talk about the finer points of healthcare economics and republicans want to talk about job creation. - Objective Dem - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 3:43 pm: I anticipate that some form of Health Care will pass. It is too far along to give it up due to one poorly run senate race. Then the sky won’t fall in and people will move on. By next November it will be a done deal and not that big of an issue. Then the focus will be on jobs and the economy. Based on current trends we should be in a slow recovery mode by then. If people see the economy is recovering they won’t be as mad and you won’t see that big of a turn-over. - Justice - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 4:04 pm: If anything Brown was elected because voters are simply fed up with most of those holding office. This should be a strong message not only to Democrats but to Republicans as well. Status quo simply will no longer do. Either you get involved in solving the issues of the country or you look for another job. So, if Republicans think this is a broad and absolute move to their side, they should rethink what actually happened. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 4:15 pm: Objective Dem, =It is too far along to give it up= Is that like too big to fail? - Angry Chicagoan - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 4:38 pm: Budget boy, I’m wondering why you think it’s a winning point to go on having health care that costs twice as much as our economic competitors while offering less access, and watching industries outsource to other countries as a result in order to escape employee benefit costs. Also, how would you explain liberal Democrats repeatedly winning elections where “moderate” hacks like Coakley lose them? Paul Wellstone, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tom Harkin, Dick Durbin, people like that. Isn’t it perhaps the same reason that conservative Republicans have also done rather well during the past ten years? In other words, that people can see they actually stand for something other than their own election? Certainly, I see fewer DINOs and many fewer RINOs than I did ten years ago. It’s a fact of life that base voting and ideology are a bigger deal than they were. - budget boy - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 4:39 pm: Justice- It’s is a broad move to be sure — fifteen point moves in MA, NJ and VA to republicans are pretty clear. Really hard to deny that the change in numbers in those states were not broad. Certainly not absolute, I agree with that. I’m sure the republicans will blow their opportunity once they have to offer something more than simply saying “No” to the healthcare bill. But, there are a whole bunch of PACs and independent contributors who will hold off (or skip) on giving to the Illinois Dem nominee because of what happened in Mass, VA and NJ. And, the polling post primary will likely indicate that 5 to 10 percent have moved to Kirk becuase he opposes the health care bill. Kirk may even be ahead after the dems are done attacking each other. Also, a number of PACs and wealthy donors will give Mark a second look because Illinois is now competitive or perhaps even gives him a slight lead. So, yes, Mass will impact contributions in the Illinois race significantly. And, as we know, money talks and b/s walks. Same thing is happening in every senate race and house race across the country. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 4:44 pm: OK - Both Massachusetts and Illinois are totally Democratic. The electorate was sick of it. There wasn’t any balance. No bipartisanship. No new ideas. The Democratic Party has set themselves up to lose, because they have it all. There is no place to go but down! They have become the status quo. The current issues are severe. Voters want change. They didn’t get it. Empowering their single party governments didn’t do it. The Democrats have made things worse, in their opinion. They have to go. Normally incumbants have a edge. Not this year. It seems that our politicians have become too comfortable in their lifestyles, because they have forgotten how to listen. They do not seem to have recognize how everything changed over the past year. The Democrats have to purge their incumbants. They have to do it during their primaries. Massachusetts went the easy, and once effective, way - they nominated their Attorney General. The stench of anger against incumbants followed her into her new campaign. This will happen to Giannoulais. This will happen to Quinn. This may happen to Hynes too, but he is better than Quinn at this point. The Illinois Democrats have to PURGE THEIR INCUMBANTS next month. The only exceptions to this is White, and perhaps Madigan. Everyone else has to go, or the Party will not have a shot in November. This is the year of revolt for single party ran states. Massachusetts did it. New Jersey did it. Illinois is going to do it too. The Democrats have no where to go but down in single party states. Consequentially, they will be once again reintroduced to political competition. And that is a good thing for everyone, Democrats included. - curious - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 4:47 pm: The Brown win was indeed partly independents moving away from a liberal democratic agenda. However a weak candidate on the Dem side also cost them. In Illinois the Mass. results will energize the republicans and it looks like they will have a solid candidate in Kirk. The results still will be uncertain as this is still a Blue State and the Dems will also have a fair candidate and both parties will have funds. It may be a case of the Governor’s race leading the ticket, with that position dominating the turn out and ultimately the Senate result. - this old hack - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 4:51 pm: My understanding is that Ms. Coakley went on vacation for a month after the primary and did not even hire a pollster until two weeks ago. They wanted her to stand outside of Fenway Park during the Bruins NHL outdoor classic game. She refused. Martha Coakley was a bad candidate, in a state that had a history of electing Republican governors (William Weld, Mitt Romney). Any other “lessons” from this race should be avoided. - budget boy - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 4:51 pm: Angry: There you go again back to health care…. You ramble on about twice the cost of this, that and the other thing. Policy wonk that and policy wonk that. To independents, you sound like the teacher in charlie brown’s classroom. In walks a republican talking about job creation and the economy (i.e., the only thing voters care about this year). Liberal dems won in the last few election cycles because people were sick of bush and the fact that he wouldn’t adjust his ideology to voter concerns about the war and the economy. Obama and Axelrod are clinging to ideology about healthcare the same way and it will be the same disaster. Also, need I remind you that Brown is a RINO. Do you really think his strategy with Coakley should have been to run to the right??? I love when dems say that their problem was that they weren’t liberal enough. It’s like hearing Mozart for the first time. - Pat collins - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 4:51 pm: The health care bill isn’t an issue in Mass. because Mitt required that everyone buy coverage years ago. Actually, that made the health bill MORE of an issue. MA voters were looking at being taxes and getting no benefits from that taxation. So they revolted The results still will be uncertain as this is still a Blue State and the Dems will also have a fair candidate Bluer than MA? I think not. And, that lady DID win a very competitive primary. How weak could she have been and still won that? - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 4:56 pm: Angry Chicagoan, Could you explain why health care costs twice as much as our “economic competitors”? Could you explain the mechanism by which people receiving health care in those other countries receive recompense due to medical malpractice? Can you explain why the rate of malpractice awards is much lower there than in our country? Can you explain why those in other countries are subjected to far fewer diagnostic tests for comparable medical conditions? The issue of tort reform is absent in the current bill and would leave a gaping hole in the cost savings regime promised by the administration. Why will Obama et al not address that? Too many trial lawyers putting the squeeze on them? Just ’cause others use universal health care doesn’t mean we have to. Many of those countries utilize the parlimentary form of gov’t. Should we change ours to that system just ’cause they use it? Really now we can, and should, address the issues surrounding health care delivery in this country but there is more than one way to get there. And it looks like we may end up finding out about some of those other ways now that the senate doesn’t have the ability to prevent the filibuster. - Objective Dem - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 4:56 pm: I think a lot of dems, particularly the political heavy weights, will look at Mass and recognize that a big part of the problem was they waited too long and took the seat for granted. After Obama’s election, I believe there was a bit of attitude that the war was won and we could all relax. Virginia and NJ were slight wake-ups but the Dems won a NY congressional seat so the results were mixed. Now after Mass, Dems are waking up to the realization that we can’t just sit back. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 4:59 pm: What makes you think that Massachusetts is the worse that can get for Illinois Democrats this year? Do they have a Rod Blagojevich to explain? To watch go through a very nationally exposed trial? Do they have a Roland Burris to explain? Does Massachusetts have a NINE BILLION dollar debt without hope of being resolved? Does Massachusetts have their health care and social facilities closing or being threatened to close because of unpaid bills? Illinois is far worse off than Massachusetts for Democrats. Get ready to either purge our incumbants, or suffer in November. The viseral hatred of what we have been going through thanks to the Democrats hasn’t even started. No excuses are going to be accepted this time. Purge! - Objective Dem - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 5:08 pm: In regards to this being too big to fail - yes its true in a way. There is too much at stake for the dems to give up now. If Health Care doesn’t pass it will weaken Obama politically and make it difficult to introduce and pass significant legislation. And if it doesn’t pass now, the general consensus is it will be another 15 years or so before it will be introduced again. My understanding is there are tens of thousands of people who die annually because of lack of health insurance. Countless people are bankrupt due to medical costs. Waiting 15 years is not acceptable. I find Budget Boys statements very telling. When Angry Chicagoan made rational arguments, Budget Boy reacts by saying it sounds like a Charlie Brown school teacher. Instead he thinks all people want is shallow “jobs are good” type talk. Unfortunately our country was ruled by people with this attitude during the Bush years and you saw where it took us..to the brink of a great depression, a squandered surplus, an unnecessary war in Iraq, etc. etc. I want what is right for the country and sometimes that means thinking about issues rather than spewing talking points and advocating ignorance. - budget boy - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 5:29 pm: Objective Dem: You think talk about jobs is shallow. It’s not. Your belief that it is shallow is the reason the dems will lose 50 seats in November. I’m happy to have a discussion about health care at a policy forum. The voters want their policy discussion focused on the job creation and cutting government spending. The underlying problem with Bush was that he was very arrogant and did not listen to what the voters were saying. Much like yourself… - Wumpus - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 5:34 pm: ILGOP needs to unite behind an electable, articulate candidate. That candidate is me. I will represent all people of il, but especially my contributors and workers. Also, I will have cheesier commercials than Preckwinkle and Terrence O’Brien put together! - Objective Dem - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 5:46 pm: I didn’t say talk about jobs is shallow. Just the opposite, my sense is you were belittling policy discussion in favor of “jobs are good” platitudes. I would love to see the Dems take on the jobs issue and focus more attention on how Repub economic policies and tax cuts have messed up the economy for the average person. How many jobs were created during the Bush years? I respect the voters enough to think they want real discussion of our health care system instead of diminishing concerns with comparisons to cartoon characters. Also I think health care reform will benefit the economy. As Angry Chicagoan pointed out we are paying about twice as much for health care as other countries with much more limited coverage. That is money that hurts us in competition with foreign manufacturers. Plus the cost and availability of health insurance makes it very difficult for people to start up new businesses. In regard to your last statement, I must admit comparing me to Bush is about as low as you can go. But I will ignore it because I am magnanimous and know it is not based in fact. The reality is I am trying to listen to what the voters (and non-voters) are saying. But I’m also trying to ignore the spin that the right is trying to put on the story. - Objective Dem - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 6:15 pm: Dupage Dan, Malpractice may be part of the issue in high costs, but there are numerous other reasons for the high cost of insurance. For instance, doctors who own the testing service or get inducements for prescribing tests/medications. My understanding is non-partisan health care experts believe that the current legislation will significantly help contain costs. - hm - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 6:51 pm: Look, from my history, elections are about two things: the economy and the candidate. Budget boy is correct when he speaks about the economy: unemployment is at 10 percent, it was about 7 percent in late 2007, housing market is still horrible, people with jobs are freaking out whether they’ll get fired, etc. Even during the Bush years, real income was falling as net income levels stayed the same whereas health care, education, and inflation were all rising very quickly. The economy hasn’t been strong since 1999 — Bush and the Republicans were able to use 9/11 to win power in 02 and 04 but that fell by 06. If you look back the election in 08, McCain and Obama were close or even up until the stock market fell down. Who had been in power since 2000? Bush and his party (McCain) got the blame –hence the 7 point lose. Note: no president or party is ever responsible for the economy working or not working. It’s just their good luck (Clinton) or bad (Bush 41). The economy hasn’t gotten any better; instead, it got much worse. Rational people knew this but voters don’t care about rational thinking: where’s the jobs? how are we going to pay the rent/mortgage? If the economy does not start adding jobs fast, no incumbent is immune from losing in November. However, since the Dems have been in power since 06 and Obama last year, the voters see it as their economy. Secondly, a strong candidate can overcome the economy and national tidal waves. A weak candidate, like Coakley, will get streamrolled and losing by 5 points in MA counts. Obviously, the Dems have screwed up. Obama needs to act like he has pair and should have told Corzine, you’re dirty I’m not supporting you. Did they pay any attention in MA? I don’t know but I don’t think so. Virigina hasn’t elected a governor from the same party as the president since the 1950s, not sure how you can blame Obama/Dems on that. The 23rd in NY shows the public isn’t in love with conservatives either: I don’t think they’ve forgotten the 2000’s already. Which leads me to Illinois Senate Race 2010. Mark Kirk is 10 times better candidate than Steve Brown (it’s unforunate that regardless of party we vote for the candidate that is easy on the eyes and drives a pickup truck than actually listening to they say/write; did you hear his acceptance speech? Looks but short ideas like Palin). A moderate conservative in a moderate liberal state, Kirk won his congressional seat 5 times in a 50-50 district. If you would have run a guy like Henry Hyde up a flag pole in MA, no one there would have saluted him. Mark Kirk, thank God, is nothing like the adulter Henry Hyde. The Democratic candidates are uninspiring at best. Cheryl Jackson is hoping to pull a Carol Mosley Braun where two white men divid the vote allowing her to squeak in — and we all know how that worked out. Alexi Giannoulias is Rod Blagoveich — and we all know how worked out. David Hoffman is honest but very very boring. If Cherly wins, they will try the female/black angle that Mark Kirk will destory because he’s not a monster (say like a Hyde). Alexi is arguably the dirtiest candidate in Illinois history — Mr. Clean Kirk will say Rezko, mobster, Blago and win in a cakewalk with the help of the economy. Hoffman makes it a 50-50 race. Will the Dems shot themselves in the foot once again? Because they are sooo good at it! - budget boy - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 7:42 pm: Objective Dem: OK-doke. On the cartoon character analogy is trying to point out that independent voters have tuned out the health care discussion. I think they may want to have a discussion about it again — but frankly not this year. I’m for health care reform as well — tort reform, managed care. I’m sure we could have a fair discussion about that. My point was that if the dems (i) continue to talk about health care and (ii) continue to think that the lesson from MA was that the proposal was not liberal enough — you are going to make it way to easy for Repubs next November. I sincerely believe that. If Dems decide to drop health care and re-center the discussion on the economy and jobs, they are going to do much better at the polls. Dems need to focus on the economy and the damage that (farily or unfairly) most believe is Bush’s fault. last, they should highlight that stabilization has occurred under Obama. I doubt the dems will take my advice… and it astounds me. - MrJM - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 8:14 pm: The Village Voice captured it best: “Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate” - DuPage Dan - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 9:04 pm: Objective Dem, I think you are right about the reduced costs of health care. That is, if you are referring to Louisiana, North Dakota and certain labor unions. They are going to see significant savings. I think some people on Medicare would question the math in the $500,000,000,000 reduction in their benefits. Is that how you reduce costs? Take it from Grandma and Grandpa? Raising taxes and funds for 5 years before starting to payout benefits seems out of whack, too. Something is hinky in DC. I remember hearing about those non-partisan health care experts who are in favor of the health care plan. Trouble is, word is out they ain’t so objective in their analyses. Perhaps just an opinion. I remember hearing that the CBO came on board after weeks of complaining just after a heart to heart w/Obama. I wonder what he offered them? Hawaii? - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 9:36 pm: ===I think some people on Medicare would question the math in the $500,000,000,000 reduction in their benefits. Is that how you reduce costs? Take it from Grandma and Grandpa?=== DD, I was under the impression that national talking points were strictly forbidden on this thread. Speaking of questioning math, where do you get a half trillion dollar medicare “reduction in benefits?” Because isn’t it also a reduction in costs? And didn’t you earlier bemoan the explosion in government spending? Which is it? Should we cut spending or not? How do we lower government spending without controlling increasing Medicare costs? Please spare us the spin. Spare us the ridiculous spin please. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 9:39 pm: Please pardon my redundancy. Pardon my redundancy please. - Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 9:46 pm: I believe the majority of voters recognize the 2K+ page “Health Reform” bill for what it is….. a pork laden pile of special interests which has little to with reform. It was also obvious that Illinois was at the back of the bus for special treatment. Voters will remember who put them last. - Bruno Behrend - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 10:46 pm: I will admit to not knowing much about candidate recruitment by Republicans at the state rep and state senate level… Mike: Hello? Tom: Yeah Mike, it’s Tom Mike: Hey Tom. Tom: Yeaaah, I was wondering if, um , ahh, well, um, You know…whether I could run an effective candidate, in um ahhh, well the, 59th district against you? Mike: No. Tom: I’d really like to, you know. Mike: 2 words “capital bill”. Tom: Darn! OK, uhhh bye. Mike: Bye. - Angry Chicagoan - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 10:57 pm: DuPage Dan, I am actually quite disappointed to see health care reform miss tort reform, but it is a small part of the problem. There is actually a place in the USA that achieves the kind of savings we need, Rochester NY, where eighty years ago firms like Westinghouse and Eastman Kodak forced the issue with regional planning of healthcare. Among the results are much less duplication of facilities and longer opening hours, the downside being for providers who must keep better than bankers hours. In any case by 20 years ago their costs were about 55 percent of the New York state average. Trouble is the system is now unraveling because with the big industrial employers a shadow of their former selves the providers have more political power. Moral of the story is that providers, not just insurers, are a major part of the problem and HCR is so far not asking nearly enough of them. - DuPage Dan - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 11:00 pm: 47th Ward. First of all, I should have said Nebraska, not North Dakota. Secondly, the cuts in Medicare that are proposed are being claimed as cost savings. This is inaccurate, if not outright prevarication. Since when has the federal gov’t successfully cut such a large entitlement program willingly? The future savings are being promised now but will, in all likelihood, never happen. Indeed, those who claim that they are going to happen know perfectly well that they are not possible. That is not being open and honest. It is dishonest. If you think for one moment that Grandma and Grandpa will stand for this charade you are astoundingly mistaken. Seniors are one of the largest voting blocs in the country and they will revolt against this. Savings can’t be realized just by cutting billings. You can’t just state, “we will cut waste from the program” and have people buy it anymore. How do you cut gov’t waste? Policing these systems is quite costly - there are many gov’t watch dogs over various agencies (I work for one in the state of Illinois) and all could describe how chronically underfunded they are and how little they can actually do to prevent fraud and waste. The current system is not working well either. One example of this is that we have a disconnect between the provider and recipient. Since people with employer provided insurance have little incentive to keep costs down they won’t go down. If you institute incentives for them to keep the costs down I believe they will. 3rd party payor systems don’t seem to work. Medical savings accounts that allow people to keep what they don’t spend (within proper limits) is one idea that has been discussed but was not part of the current bill. I won’t go into a detailed description here - you may already be aware of the proposal. Making it necessary that people will pay for some basic health care costs out of their pockets - Dr visits, Rx and some tests for instance - will make it less likely they will go to the Dr every time they get the sniffles. Keep insurance available for catastrophic medical incidents is more reasonable. Kind of like car insurance which covers major accident damage. You don’t have insurance to cover oil changes, do you?. A crude (sorry) comparison but the best I can do this late at nite. Laser eye surgery is one example of how a for profit health care treatment can work. In recent years, costs for this treatment has come down what with advancements in the process and using economies of scale. Indeed, competition between providers has brought the cost down to a level where many people of modest means can afford this procedure. Can this be generalized to other medical treatments? We won’t know if we don’t explore that. The amount of earmarks that are loaded into this bill, the back door deals that are occurring without the openness that was promised by Obama are breathtaking. The fact that many on the left can not even accept that this process has been a colossal fraud and failure is also breathtaking. The fact that an overwhelming majority of folks in MA don’t believe the hype is something you can’t ignore. I ain’t the only one with this opinion. You may think I am a fool but how can so many independents in MA be convinced the whole thing is bunk? Are they under some hypnotic trance created by some nefarious force? These are people who overwhelmingly voted for Obama and now they are rejecting the “hope and change”. How can you explain that? Mass psychosis? Is that talking points enough for you? - DuPage Dan - Wednesday, Jan 20, 10 @ 11:09 pm: Angry Chicagoan, Employer provided health care insurance is an archaic way of providing health care which was instituted during WWll to help facilitate the war effort. It should have been reformed, revamped or abandoned years ago. That would have had a major impact on the outcome of your story. It appears that it worked so long as the industry was vibrant. It also appears that the system didn’t fail until the industry failed. Proves my point. Disconnect health care from the gov’t and from specific employers, allow people to purchase insurance across state lines to foster more competition and build in incentives so that people seeking health care limit the casual use of the system and add a touch of tort reform. Once you have done that you can see what savings will come. These are things that can be done without spending taxpayer money. If costs can be contained you will see lower insurance costs which will make it possible for more people to afford same. - Angry Chicagoan - Thursday, Jan 21, 10 @ 8:14 pm: OK, now we’re talking. Actual solutions. The trouble is that the single most important part of bringing in the kind of competition you advocate — the purchasing and full portability across state lines — requires federal regulation and an end to the anti-trust exemption for insurance, which most Republicans and “conservative” Democrats have opposed (Nelson in particular is an offshoot of the insurance industry). Also don’t diss the Rochester system too quickly. Employers — large group purchases of health care — had the buying power in the market to make themselves heard. If we’re to go to an all-individual system, presumably the end of antitrust exemption is needed to create a comparably favorable situation from the point of the consumer. But the Rochester system in its heyday also involved a lot of cooperation between insurers, hospitals and employers — an “all-payer” system that got rid of the phrase “out of network”, and very considerable coordination of medical facilities. As the system has broken down, Rochester’s rate of vacant hospital beds, for example, has gone from being very low to roughly where it is elsewhere as hospitals have overbuilt. A crucial element of maintaining affordability in Rochester was avoiding overcapacity in physical facilities, and to do that nationally, you’d probably need some kind of regulatory element as well. Is there really any justification for practically every hospital in Chicago to be spending massive amounts of money on expanded facilities as individual hospitals pursue market share as a strategy? We pay for the waste in the end. I think the biggest question of the year will be whether majorities in Congress will be willing to stand up and open up purchasing and portability of policies across state lines and get rid of the anti-trust exemption. I’m not optimistic; I think too many politicians have been bought off by insurers, too many providers are resisting cost controls, and the near-monopoly insurers in many states have too much at stake. But we mustn’t forget the role of provider costs as well in this crisis — and in Rochester’s loss of its once-formidable cost advantage. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.