HolyCoast: Both Parties See November's Elections Very Differently
Follow RickMoore on Twitter

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Both Parties See November's Elections Very Differently

A lot of us on the right are amazed that after the electoral beat down the Democrats took on Nov. 3 that they'd insist on pushing forward with Obamacare, as we read the election as a repudiation of bigger government, socialized medicine, higher taxes...etc. However, as Larry Sabato tells us, Democrats saw the election very differently:
“Three elections guaranteed the 60 votes: 2006 and 2008, which gave Democrats the White House and large Hill majorities, and 2009,” says Sabato. He continues: “What's that, you say? Didn't Republicans win the day in '09?”

“Yes, and the Republican interpretation of ‘09, as applied to health care, was that the victories of Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell would deter the Democrats from moving forward on the bill,” says Sabato. “But Democrats drew precisely the opposite lesson from ‘09. In their analysis, if they didn’t hang together and re-energize their party activists with a health care win, they'd hang separately in November 2010. Worried senators and congressmen began to see their names etched on the wall of losers, right after Jon Corzine and Creigh Deeds.”

“The conclusion, as always,” says Sabato, “is that elections matter — and so do the prevailing interpretations of those elections.”

“It is always possible that some new rationale will take hold after Thanksgiving, especially if this debate drags on and on, but there is no compelling substitute for the classroom of elections,” he adds. “Rallies, demonstrations, and protest letters are vastly inferior to the ballot box, if one's goal is to influence legislative behavior. The pro-reform forces have a big advantage in this sense.”

Democrats apparently believe their path to re-election next year involves passing socialized medicine since that will help them keep their left wing intact. However, it's driving independents and moderates away and they can't possibly win without them. They have badly misread the November 3rd results.

My fear is there won't be a courageous Democrat among them willing to stop government health care in the Senate and some form of this disaster will get passed. It will effectively end the careers of many elected Democrats, including some big names like Harry Reid and Chris Dodd, but they may have already written 2010 off and have decided to go out with a bang.

As more details come out about this bill during Senate debate it can't possibly help the Democrat chances for retaining power.

3 comments:

Nightingale said...

Democrats are like lemmings running off a cliff.

Bye, bye lemmings.

Robert Fanning said...

I think the Democrats are counting on the analysis of their bill that shows savings on health care. Never mind that this includes taxing for years before benefits start. I am hard pressed to understand why CBO did not factor this into the analysis, but they appeared to be doing simple in/out analysis of monies.

Anonymous said...

Well, I have read in many places that Health Care was dead before it ever got started, but it is already much farther than was being predicted, and nothing in sight seems to be able to stop it. Gary Bauer predicted the otehr day that it will become law.

I think The Establishment Left is hoping that they can actually create a meltdown to the point that everyone is dependent on government handouts by the time fall 2010 rolls round.

A total collapse is already being predicted for the USA
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/World/Story/STIStory_423750.html

When that happens the government will have to move in and martial law will have to be declared. Once order is restored, the Establishment Left will simply create whatever type of government they want to.

Can't happen? Convince me why not.