Democrats caught in gridlock
A Republican win in Massachusetts strips Democrats from having the 60 votes needed to pass legislation in the Senate
By Alysa Stryker
Last Updated:12:21 PM EST 1/31/10 Section: News
The fate of health care reform came down to the voters of Massachusetts on Jan. 19.
Voters came out in droves to choose which candidate would fill the late senator Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat after his death late last August.
With approximately 52 percent of the vote, Republican Scott Brown walked away with a victory, and the unique ability to derail the possibility of a democratic overhaul of health care.
Brown's win spells out mathematical disaster for the Democrats. In order to pass legislation in the senate, 60 votes are necessary, and a Republican win for the seat leaves Democrats just one vote shy of a supermajority with a total of 59 votes.
Democrat Martha Coakley's campaign came during a pivotal election year. On Nov. 2, the entirety of the House of Representatives and one third of the Senate will be up for re-election.
At this point, it is questionable whether Coakley's loss is a sign of unhappiness with current democratic leadership, or a lackluster campaign.
"[It was] a combination of both. It was a poor campaign strategy, because she essentially took a month off. She had a lead, she felt comfortable, she didn't do what politicians are supposed to be doing. Politicians are supposed to be out there, claiming credit," said political science professor Tracy Harbin.
"[With] that said, I think that if you look at how Brown campaigned, [there is] the idea that the state of Massachusetts already has a great state health care system, which is of course what this federal idea is supposed to be modeled upon."
Harbin says the question then becomes, "why should Massachusetts change what already works?"
In Massachusetts, a health care reform law in 2006 made it necessary for nearly every resident to have health insurance. The system provides free health care for those under the federal poverty level, while offering subsidized health care on an income based scale.
"It was a bad campaign. I don't think you can put it all on a bad campaign. Even a bad campaign in Massachusetts for a Democrat should still do okay. However if she had run a good campaign I think she would have won," said political science professor, Zachary Shirkey. "It does suggest there's unhappiness with what the Democrats are currently doing in Washington, what that unhappiness is, I think is less clear."
Voters came out in droves to choose which candidate would fill the late senator Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat after his death late last August.
With approximately 52 percent of the vote, Republican Scott Brown walked away with a victory, and the unique ability to derail the possibility of a democratic overhaul of health care.
Brown's win spells out mathematical disaster for the Democrats. In order to pass legislation in the senate, 60 votes are necessary, and a Republican win for the seat leaves Democrats just one vote shy of a supermajority with a total of 59 votes.
Democrat Martha Coakley's campaign came during a pivotal election year. On Nov. 2, the entirety of the House of Representatives and one third of the Senate will be up for re-election.
At this point, it is questionable whether Coakley's loss is a sign of unhappiness with current democratic leadership, or a lackluster campaign.
"[It was] a combination of both. It was a poor campaign strategy, because she essentially took a month off. She had a lead, she felt comfortable, she didn't do what politicians are supposed to be doing. Politicians are supposed to be out there, claiming credit," said political science professor Tracy Harbin.
"[With] that said, I think that if you look at how Brown campaigned, [there is] the idea that the state of Massachusetts already has a great state health care system, which is of course what this federal idea is supposed to be modeled upon."
Harbin says the question then becomes, "why should Massachusetts change what already works?"
In Massachusetts, a health care reform law in 2006 made it necessary for nearly every resident to have health insurance. The system provides free health care for those under the federal poverty level, while offering subsidized health care on an income based scale.
"It was a bad campaign. I don't think you can put it all on a bad campaign. Even a bad campaign in Massachusetts for a Democrat should still do okay. However if she had run a good campaign I think she would have won," said political science professor, Zachary Shirkey. "It does suggest there's unhappiness with what the Democrats are currently doing in Washington, what that unhappiness is, I think is less clear."
Be the first to comment on this story