Way to step up Massachusetts

[iammpspeer]

All you guys on here from MA who voted the correct way today, thanks. I think it speaks volumes on how politicians do everything BUT speak for the people, and today MA let them know it.

[Lefty-Golfer]

Awesome news!! it is a great day.

Unites States 1up over Baraks Socialist Utopia States...

Lets hope the Dems continue with the thier arrogant ways...bribes, back room deals, new taxes...it will be a pigeon shoot in November.

[MSDOGS1976]

Teddy must be rolling in his grave. ;)

[Leftygolfer]

Thank you everyone who voted for Brown. A historic moment in history. If they still push through healthcare before he is seated I would be amazed. That would be polical suicide. They are going to get killed in November either way but that would be.... This was a vote against healthcare reform.

[Fatphil]

I agree, health care is already a huge ponzi scheme and as they wrote that bill making health care mandatory it was literally a license to steal to BCBS, Humana and all the rest. Obama should keep Gitmo open just for all the insurance •••••s out there and the pols that get the commissions (oh sorry campaign contributions...my bad)

[Fat Slice]

If you really think a republican is better than a democrat, or the other way around, good luck with that. Neither party represents the people, they vote for their paying lobbies - they just have different paymasters (with some overlapping).

[B Keller]

If you really think a republican is better than a democrat, or the other way around, good luck with that. Neither party represents the people, they vote for their paying lobbies - they just have different paymasters (with some overlapping).

You are absolutely correct. The problem is that because of the party system (that Washington told us not to do, by the way) there isn't any room for a legitimate candidate to get into office and truly represent the people. Therefore I vote for the lesser of the two bad guys. Too bad the Republicans of today are as or more liberal than the Democrats of the 60s.....

[Big_M]

You are absolutely correct. The problem is that because of the party system (that Washington told us not to do, by the way) there isn't any room for a legitimate candidate to get into office and truly represent the people. Therefore I vote for the lesser of the two bad guys. Too bad the Republicans of today are as or more liberal than the Democrats of the 60s.....

wish we could try proportional representation or something similar in the House that would make the smaller parties a little more meaningful. I have issues with both parties, but lean toward Republican as well... would love to see some "other" parties actually have seats.

[Leftygolfer]

I'd take the Rep any day of the week. I agree, there isn't a party for the people. They are all bought off once they are in Washington. I think term limits would change the landscape of Washington. Then it wouldn't just be about being re-elected. That bill is the biggest pay off corrupt thing in recent history. A 1.3 Trillion dollar bill that 75% of the country doesn't want. It would drive up cost. We need reform that does the opposite. We need tort limitations, dereglation of insurance markets to drive down cost through competition, and better oversight of Medicare/medicare.

[Lefty-Golfer]

You are absolutely correct. The problem is that because of the party system (that Washington told us not to do, by the way) there isn't any room for a legitimate candidate to get into office and truly represent the people. Therefore I vote for the lesser of the two bad guys.

Bolded is so sad...I would be happy for a 3rd party I could on board with but right now I hate liberals, tolarate the far right as best as I can and totally support fiscal conservatism at any and every chance...

[wannabe]

While I think the voters in MA, who are largely independent, were looking at this as a way to reign in an out of control federal gov't, I think they failed.

Just 5-1/2 minutes into this video of a press conference w/Brown after his election win, Brown, a Republican, basically says that he's for everyone getting a health care plan. democrat-lite at best.

http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/0...nate+Seat.aspx

And the pundits everywhere are cheering this as a game-changer? wrong-o.

Voters everywhere have gotta start looking for candidates who will put a stop to this overreaching gov't. Sometimes there is no alternative, but when there is, ya gotta look for the outsiders and vote for them.

[Fraser]

If you really think a republican is better than a democrat, or the other way around, good luck with that. Neither party represents the people, they vote for their paying lobbies - they just have different paymasters (with some overlapping).

+1

Moving from Europe to the US one I thing I notice is a lot of diehards that blindly support the party their parents/grandparents/great-grandparents did. There doesn't seem to be more of the general public free thinking based on actual policy, the merits of the individual candidate or their manifesto. Much more of a flying the flag mentality. In the UK declaring who you vote for and support (unless you're actively campaigning or work for the party) is much more taboo. I really have no idea who my parents vote for and the last time there was a general election when we emerged from the booth I asked and they didn't tell me!

[Chilli Dipper]

While I think the voters in MA, who are largely independent, were looking at this as a way to reign in an out of control federal gov't, I think they failed.

I don't think that's what this election was about at all. Massachusetts is a state where Democrats are very liberal and Republicans aren't all that conservative. It was a special election, depressing turnout and making getting out the vote the determining factor. Republicans in the state were motivated at their best chance in decades to earn a Senate seat (with both seats in Dem control since 1978, held by only three people during that period), and they took advantage of the opportunity. On the other hand, the Democratic base showed their frustration towards a Senate that hasn't been doing enough with their majority from a liberal/progressive perspective by staying home; their candidate's awful campaign didn't help matters.

Like the few elections that took place last November, this didn't resemble anything resembling a national game-changer. Obama isn't toast yet, and the GOP still isn't quite out of the doldrums. I'm seeing the same picture developing for this year's mid-term elections as I did two months ago.

• Democrats in Washington (especially the Senate) need to stop being complacent and give their base something to rally behind on health and financial reform;
• Republicans can gain seats in states that don't bleed red if they run center-right candidates like Brown (MA), Christie (NJ), and McDonnell (VA), but not with hard-lining Tea Partiers (even if the latter stands a better chance at the nomination);
• More than anything, the mood is anti-incumbent; the closer ties a governor or congressman has to "the establishment" (a.k.a., Wall Street), the harder the road to re-election will be.

[Chilli Dipper]

As a partisan observer, Jon Stewart does a better job in summing up my feelings than I could.

[Fatphil]

eh Fraser, what is your experience with the UK medical care? We here all kinds a shit here that it sucks and old people are left to die in the streets. Same with Canada. Seems hard to believe. What's your opinion?

[doof_dizzler]

Very pleased to see Brown win the senate seat. Huge upset. Will really change how the senate and house do things in the next few months. Democrats from conservative areas have to realize that they can easily get voted out in November, as their association with Obama/Pelosi/Reid is likely to be seen as much of a liability as an advantage.

What a difference a year makes!

[Shanks A Million]

It's truly amazing to see how many rumors persist about politics in the United States. More myths abound in politics than in the whole of mythology. We tend to view the parties as polar opposites, and tend to favor one side or the other. We convince ourselves that the Nazis/Communists are evil, and they must be on the other side, so we call them extreme right and extreme left.

Thing is, we're all wrong. As someone who both has an advanced education in political science, and a close family member serving as the governor of one of the larger states, I can perhaps explain this a bit better. I'll use politicalcompass.org as my model, as it's respectable, and very clear.

There is no "left" and "right" in politics. This one dimensional argument is worthless. There are two axises on which politics are formed, the social, and the economic axis. The social axis' far sides are authoritarian (social right wing) and libertarian (social left wing.) The economic axis' far sides are communism (economic left wing), and capitalism (economic right wing.) These two make up what we call the Nolan chart.



The problem is, these are not connected. Communism is anywhere on the far left side of the chart, but totally irrelevant of the right/left social position. The Soviet communists were economically extreme left wing, but socially extreme right wing. The Nazis were socially extreme right wing, but economically centrist. Both of these parties don't follow the traditional left/right dichotomy.

Now, as to where American politicians fall onto this chart, first we should see where some of the so called "socialist" states fall. Sweden, which is seen as an ultra left wing nation, is in truth, not quite. The whole of the EU all fall within the right side of the economic chart. Almost all of them fall on the right side of the social scale as well...



Now, where does the United States fall? Many call Obama an Extremist, many call Bush an extremist... Nothing could be farther from the truth, the United States occupies a tiny compartment in the political spectrum:



The United States falls right center into the authoritarian right, as do most nations. There have only been a few instances of libertarian nations in history. An extreme left wing nation (socially, economics aside for now) would be one with no laws whatsoever. The American West was a good example, few laws, anarchy. The American West would fall to the bottom right of the chart. The bottom left of the chart is even more rare. This would be a country that practiced full scale communism, but had no laws governing personal freedom.

So, before everyone goes and starts calling Obama a socialist (which is quite laughable) or Bush a Nazi (also laughable), learn some basic politics. I've never seen such a polarized nation in which two people who are separated by just a few small issues, like Gay Marrige or Heathcare, are considered enemies.

Indeed, Healthcare is among the last thing that isn't "social" in the U.S. We do social programs pretty well. We have options, and we're lucky. There's a public police force, fire department, roads, military, schools, postal services, and water works. We also have a private option for everything but the fire department, from private investigators, private security, toll roads, private schools, UPS/Fed Ex/DHL, and well water. Canada is extremely rare in that it doesn't have a private healthcare system. Every other major nation has a private alternative, and so will the U.S. so don't fear healthcare, it's not a big deal.

Besides, I have a pre-existing condition. Until the bill passes, I have to just pray I don't get sick. If I do, I'll be bankrupt for the rest of my life.

[sean_miller]

All I know on the issue:

1.) there's only one "e" in Massachusetts.
2.) In Canada, if a person isn't bleeding from an open head wound, or your child is less than 6 months old, you may have to call 911 to speak with medical professional. Unless of course you need a flu shot, then good luck trying to avoid it.