illusionofjoy | Why Coakley lost

The Associated Press calls it an "epic upset" in the title and within the first four words of the article this except is from:

BOSTON – In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to win the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy for nearly half a century, leaving President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt and marring the end of his first year in office.

The loss by the once-favoured Democrat Martha Coakley in the Democratic stronghold was a stunning embarrassment for the White House after Obama rushed to Boston on Sunday to try to save the foundering candidate. Her defeat signalled big political problems for the president's party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.

"I have no interest in sugarcoating what happened in Massachusetts," said Sen. Robert Menendez, the head of the Senate Democrats' campaign committee. "There is a lot of anxiety in the country right now. Americans are understandably impatient."

Brown will become the 41st Republican in the 100-member Senate, which could allow the GOP to block the president's health care legislation and the rest of his agenda. Democrats needed Coakley to win for a 60th vote to thwart Republican filibusters.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Brown won with 52% of the vote to Coakley's 47%. This is hardly a landslide for the Republican, but the Times article goes on to push the canard that this election was a referendum on Obama's "liberal" agenda. Many Republicans likely believe that they were striking a blow against "liberalism run amok," so much are they like Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

Of course, registered Republicans are vastly outnumbered by registered Democrats in Massachusetts (independents outnumber both, still). So why would Democratic voters either remove themselves from the electorate pool or vote against Coakley?

I suspect the talking point that Coakley would guarantee passage of the health deform bill hurt her more than it helped. The right-wing hates this bill because they think it's socialism. Liberals hate this bill because they see it for that it is: a vulgar expansion of the culture of corporate feudalism being bred by Washington in the form of handouts to major corporations - this time the health insurance industry. I doubt Brown will do any good in the Senate, but the Democrats, in stringent denial of reality have shot themselves in the foot with this wretched bill. Coakley's political career is likely over because the party establishment, led by the withering Barack Obama hung this albatross of a bill around her neck. Thus, with votes tallied by simple majorities, a lamb-like public allows the pendulum to swing back in the other direction.

I don't live in Massachusetts. If I did, I would have voted for Coakley despite the propaganda her party hoisted upon her. However, even though there are now only 57 Democrats (plus two independents who caucus with them) in the Senate, I doubt that this bill is dead. The majority is not filibuster proof, but it is still a majority. Like the Republicans, the Democrats have completely lost touch with reality and are intent on passing this bill no matter what the consequences.

There are going to be a lot more pendulums swinging come 2012. And it will be the American people who end up in the pit.