What’s up Mass?
Unemployment numbers and another Republican Senator. What’s down? Health care reform prospects and Obama’s confidence. What’s dead? Marthy Coakly’s likability amongst Demcocrats and potentially what Ted Kennedy had called the “purpose of his life” – health care reform.
Although it’s still early, I’m willing to bet that there will be a significant number of post-election analysis that focuses on the link between economic malaise and high levels of unemployment and the ability of Scott Brown to galvanize independent voters across Massachusetts. Already, the analysis point to voters’ dissatisfaction with the current state of the economy and the historically high levels of unemployment, particularly in Massachusetts. All throughout the state the Democrats either lost ground in the independent zones or had poor turnout in the traditionally Democratic areas.
Well, this type of public reaction doesn’t surprise me. However, the fact that the political about-face happened in Ted Kennedy’s home state in a special election for his position seems a bit mindbogglingly. But perhaps it isn’t. There are two reasons for this seemingly abrupt change in the political landscape.
One, as I pointed out several weeks ago, the historically high level of unemployment won’t be tolerated for long, and is a serious political-economic thorn in the Democrat’s side. The inability of the Obama administration to stave off massive unemployment due to an undersized stimulus bill and negligence towards government jobs creation has set them up for defeats such as this one. I didn’t expect such a swift and decisive reaction, but then again the unemployment rate in Massachusetts reached 9.3% last September – the highest rate since 1973 (the current rate is 8.8%). Such high levels of unemployment are bound to produce political repercussions. Hungry people don’t stay hungry for long. The Massachusetts voters’ pocket book speaks louder and more decisively than President Obama and the Democrats could ever hope to.
Second, if case you didn’t already know, Massachusetts already has a near universal health care system. So prods from President Obama to the voters of Mass. to recognize the significance that this election has on the success or failure of health care reform had little impact on the psyche of the voter. As stated in one Times post-election analysis report, “Massachusetts is one of the few states where the benefits promised by the national bill were expected to have little effect on how many of its residents got coverage, making it an unlikely place for a referendum on the health care bill.” Health care is of little importance in Mass., whereas employment has a direct impact and a strong political influence on the minds of voters, particularly the indecisive independents. Why vote to support something that will have little to no impact on you? It may sound crude (and might be cruel), but people in Massachusetts probably don’t care much about the health care reform bill when sizing it up next to their pathetic unemployment check. Can you blame them?
So, the impact of this rather stunning defeat is a stern message the Obama and the Democratic leadership: um… get it together or we won’t vote for you. Although most policy analyst give Obama somewhere around a B – B- for performance, that doesn’t matter much if the Democrats start losing power. Furthermore, the chances that health care reform could seriously die are much more real. Democrats no longer have the filibuster proof 60 votes, and there doesn’t seem to be any sense of solidarity amongst Democratic Congressmen as to whether they could pass the bill before the full impact of Brown’s election is realized, namely the blocking and subsequent defeat of the bill.
Is this election the effect of typical Democratic dithering and political capital squandering instead of party cohesion and action? Is is a harbinger of further GOP gains in the upcoming mid-term elections? Maybe. Regardless, we all know what the central focus of Obama campaign was. I sense Obama’s legacy hanging in the balance.
There’s an interesting debate on the Times “Room for Debate” blog entitled “The Democrats’ Day After.” It’s focused around the age old political precept that Democrats are constantly plagued by their inability to rally around a single, unified party cause. The debate discusses how this political maxim within the context of the Democratic Senate loss in Mass. and the Democratic Party’s inability to make many significant policy gains despite holding the Presidency and majorities in both House and Senate.
The debate itself is interesting, but I found this one comment at the bottom by a independent Mass. voter particularly relevant to my post.
He’s obviously been deceived a bit. Scott’s a professional politician. He drives an old beat-up truck not because he’s a small town simpleton, but because he knows what buys votes. And I highly doubt he’s a “working poor Caucasian.” That last part is really quite incredulous. Maybe the comment is a satire. Probably not though.
Aside from the campaign strategies (or perhaps mainly because of them), I think it’s because Scott appealed to the struggles of the struggling blue-collar worker and the unemployed coupled with the failures of the Democrats (real or perceived) that got him elected. That and a shotty campaign on Coakly’s behalf.
The posts on this site are all really great quality. I could spend literally years reading the posts on this site and never get bored. So anyway just wanted to comment and let you know :).