Democrats lose MA Senate seat in major upset.
@RAVENBLADE0842 (493)
United States
January 19, 2010 10:34pm CST
Tonight the political landscape changed dramatically for President OBama. Republican Scott Brown pulled off a major upset in Massachusettes to take over the Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy for over 20 years. What this means for you and me is that the 60 seat majority needed to pass the health care bill reforms in the Senate is now gone with the Democrats holding a 59-41 majority. Republicans can not block passage of the health care bill. In addition this is scene as a very bad sign for the President's adminstration because next year there will be several Democrat seats up for grabs in the Senate and House elections all over the country. Whether your a Democrat or Republican, How do feel about this latest backlash against President OBamas adminstration? How do you think next years elections will change the Presidents commitment to "Change".
1 person likes this
2 responses
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
20 Jan 10
I wouldn't call what happened tonight an upset or landslide. 20 percent, even 15 percent could have been considered a landslide. .
A louder statement tonight though would have been to have elected that independant fellow, Kenedy (no relation). I don't know much about him, mostly because it wasn't my election but niether could anyone else, none of the news networks gave the "third" guy any attention (big suprise). What saddened me was this election AGAIN became a dem vs rep pissing match, both in party and in spirit.
I can't say tonights results were a suprise. the democrats elected possibly the worst possible candidate and it cost them the election. I think they were so complacent and confident they just elected anyone because they felt any democrat could win it, then in the general election, she figured she was a democrat so the race already hers and she just f'd off the entire campaign. She was a train wreck, and they put her up against a candidate who had his shytte together, who didnt really have a seedy background, was a state legislator for a number of years, was less of a republican establishment type candidate and just had a lot of popular support.
SO as to what this means? I don't want to assign too much signifigance to it yet. I dont know that it was a "referendum" on healthcare, or Obabam, or the democrats, or whatever. I don't know how libertarian this Brown guy is yet, he doesn't yet seem to be a typical "establishment" republican, but we'll see what happens when the national machine gets a hold of him. I don't rust either party anymore, make no mistake about it, almost NONE of are interested in anything but their own popwer and by proxie, the power of the federal government and total willfull ingoring of constituional limits.
The big show is going to come in 2010. I still believe you will see a lot more independants and possibly an additional party represenative or two.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
20 Jan 10
"but I am also not sure that we can really take any Independents seriously"
why not? I don't see politics in terms of right and left, that is only one tiny insignifigant part of the equation. It doesn't matter how far or little a candidate runs to the right, what matters is how libertarian (not meaning the libertarian party) they are they in their philosophy. Virtually all but a very tiny handfull in congress are those of an authoritarian big government mentality no matter how comservative they are. Most supported T.A.R.P., the patriot act, ignore posse commitatus, supported the NorthCom civil assistance plan, support and back the blackmailing of states, and numerous other totalitarian and unconstitutional authorities. And I simply don't believe the "ok o we get it we'll stop, we're sorry!" line some seem to be towing now, I'm simply not buying the penetent sinner schtick anymore.
@RAVENBLADE0842 (493)
• United States
20 Jan 10
Well it was a major upset in the sense that a Democrat lost a seat in a state that housed a Democrat for over 20 years. While it is true the Democrat who held office all those years happened to be Ted Kennedy, I think your right that the party itself took this election way too lightly. They did indeed put a canidate up for the Senate that was not prepared for a fight to get the job. I think the winner in this case will prove to be a more moderate Republican. First of all I don't think he would be wise to go to far to the right, and risk alienating the very people who elected him. Just for the record I am a registered Republican, and like you I am not crazy about either side of the equation, but I am also not sure that we can really take any Independents seriously. At think Independents will see a small pickup in the House or Senate, but not enough to really make a difference. If your right, and we see more, then it will make for an interesting turn for OBama in the 2nd two years of his term. In any case Politics on the national stage tends to change in waves, and I do think we will see a counter shift of 2008 elections to the right in 2010.
@laglen (19759)
• United States
20 Jan 10
I think this is a very positive out come for our country. I think this years elections will continue to head to the right. The majority of the people do not like the direction the country os taking under President Obama. Me included.
@RAVENBLADE0842 (493)
• United States
20 Jan 10
Well your right, there are a whole lot of people upset with the way things are headed in our country. Since President OBama took office this is the third straight election lost by the Democrats. The other two were Govenorships, but next year there could be not just a small, but massive shift to the right. Ironically similiar to the shift to the left that happened during elections for Senate, and the House when the President won office. The question at this point doesn't seem to be whether Democrats will lose seats next year, but how many.
1 person likes this
