Here and there

Amazing that Mike Oliverio defeated Alan Mollohan from "the right" in the Democratic primary. "The right" being in opposition to the HCR that Mollohan voted for. But this is a common mistake that CW writers like Chris Cillizza make. Maybe not a mistake but just a simplistic DC mindset for expaining things only from a "who wins" partisan perspective based on which party holds the Presidency.

It's widely admitted in Democratic circles that HCR was a boon for the corporate healthcare system, that it does very little in the short-term for many, and in the long run will place a unpopular mandate tax and need to be radically reformed to make it anywhere near a plausible solution. In fact, many of the most vocal supporters will quietly tell you they know its a failure but the "foot in the door" means a way of fixing it later. In the mean time though, politicians opposing HCR as it was passed is much more of a populist anti-corporate stance than it is a stance of the rightwingers-- they for the most part have no problem with rampant corporate power and profits.

The UK is so much more pragmatic than the US when it comes to political rule. I believe it comes from having such a short election cycle, that opinions are not hardened in campaigning opposition over months but mere weeks, instead. Here the hyperbole of campaigning has extended into governing as well. There's a chance that the new-formed coalition between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives might just work. Of course, it could just as likely flame out with a sour economic recovery and ideological differences. The notion that the Lib Dems might "continue the process of detoxification" for the Conservative Party is interesting, and a possibility, with the emergence of the UKIP getting quite a few votes this past GE.

538, which didn't do very well in predicting the outcome (who did?) has a retropective post up. Nate chalks it up to a lack of data, but it was well known that up to 40% of Lib Dem voters were being polled as saying up to the last day that they could change their mind. Well, they did! 

Further Silver: "..for the Liberal Democrats, it was quite erratic. Although they received about the same share of the vote overall, they did much better in some constituencies and much worse in others..." I mentioned this before, and it goes along with my take away that the local LD candidate in many places was just not as strong a candidate as the more adept candidate put up by either Conservatives or Labour.  The Lib Dems are to be congratulated for running a national campaign, but a better focus on getting stronger candidates across the board would have yielded a outcome with more seats won.

Tags: uk, hcr (all tags)

Comments

9 Comments

wasn't following WV-1 closely

but my impression is that Mollohan's alleged corruption was the main issue.

by desmoinesdem 2010-05-12 09:45AM | 1 recs
RE: wasn't following WV-1 closely

Yes, it totally was, see his ad. Characterizing it, like Cillizza did as from "the right" over HCR was to make a wider point. Oliverio ran as a anti-DC candidate all-around, even running against Pelosi.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-12 09:58AM | 0 recs
Administration's lack of intestinal fortitude

Let's just say it once and for all, even though the HCR bill has some good things like high risk pools and letting people with pre-existing conditions buy insurance, all that could have been done without spending a dime. Instead what we have is a behemoth that as of today has projected costs $1T but has no adequate measures to keep costs down, nothing to enforce the insurence companies from raising their premiums, or for that matter prevent rescision. A few days ago, Frontline on PBS covered the HCR battle and painted it as a great example of this President's leadership!! The only reason this bill does not cost more and actually has a few progressive ideas is because of the Speaker. This President has time and again shown that when it comes to taking a principled stand, versus taking the politically expedient stand, he chooses the latter. Make no mistake, the HCR bill was always going to be a larger version of MA Commonwealth care with all the problems that is plaguing it now, that is why the President's point man in the Senate was the insurance company shill Max Baucus. So a centrist President gave us a Heritage foundation bill and the same centrist President is giving us Elena Kagan, who it is now revealed encouraged then President Clinton to "deny Medicare funding for abortions in cases of rape or incest – in part to avoid a messy battle with Republicans". How very Obamaesque!! More incumbent Democrats will lose their seat, or just retire because it is hard to run on something that is wishy-washy and politically expedient, versus something that is grounded on principles. And people ask why isn't the Democratic base energized?? sheesh!!

by tarheel74 2010-05-12 10:45AM | 0 recs
On many more readings

The Reed staff memo was to implement Hyde amendment as it stood in 1998 on to medicare funded abortions. In 1998 Hyde language covered abortions for women whose life was in danger and also for rape and incest. However, it banned abortion for vulnerable and disabled women and sympathetic cases that did not fit the Hyde restrictions. I apologize for quoting the report verbatim. Josh Gerstein who wrote the report linked above seems like an idiot who does not know how to read in the English language, I should have rechecked the memo myself. But the fact still remains that the memo encouraged the President to take a politically expedient stand, rather than side with women's rights.

by tarheel74 2010-05-12 11:36AM | 0 recs
Do you like

have anything else to say on this damn blog except how awful the President is? You've been doing it since the day he was elected. Jeez. 

by DTOzone 2010-05-12 04:52PM | 0 recs
You told us so!

Thanks! Looks like Obama's (and Reids's, and Pelosi's) failures, especially on HCR have had exactly the effect you all predicted - that the Democrats have and will lose big in the mid-terms and probably in 2012 as well. Had they only been more progressive and acted more like the Republicans have when they owned the majority and the White House, then we'd already be celebrating the end to the Wars, the end of DADT, we'd have universal single payer Health Care with Fedral funding of abortion. We might have had Laurence Tribe on the SCOTUS, and HUGE VICTORIES in the elections for the foreseeable future.

It seems so obvious, now.

by QTG 2010-05-12 02:27PM | 0 recs
RE: You told us so!

haha, haha, haha, haha... and so on...

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-12 05:29PM | 1 recs
Let's be real here

The Democratic electorate in West Virginia is unlike that in any other state, except perhaps Arkansas.  Show me ANYWHERE else that the anti-HCR and anti-Pelosi candidate can win a Democratic primary.  There isn't even a data point here.

by Steve M 2010-05-12 05:48PM | 2 recs
RE: Let's be real here

Its probably an Appalachian thing, pretty well documented in '08 that Obama has no pull there.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-12 05:58PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads