For all of you who think Coakley will lose because she's for this healthcare bill...

do you think Kennedy would've lost if HE supported the current bill? Because that's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn. :shrug:

but it's not HCR that is the only problem with the election - overall disappointment and disillusionment is quite widespread

:rofl:

there is no answer - and it's sad that has to be explained to you

It's sad that you can't answer the simple question.

so no, cannot answer

maybe you don't want to buy insurance because you want to keep freeloading but I'm sick of paying your tab and listening you destroy our president over it.

as Keith Olbermann and Eugene Robinson said tonight, even though he was an icon, Ted Kennedy was always very responsive and supportive of his constituents.

and 46% disapprove.

Fifty-one percent of likely voters here say no to it while 36% say yes. Sixty-one percent think Washington can't afford it.

so do you disagree with those who say Coakley will lose because of her support for the healthcare bill?

HCR is a ruse by Brown to gain the votes of disaffected independents. Whatever one's views about the Senate version of HCR, one cannot hold Coakley accountable for the spectacle we saw in the US Senate, and one must consider the harm that Brown will cause on a variety of issues were he to win tomorrow.

this question wasn't for you. Very logical reply.

I believe a lot of Dems will go out of their way to vote.

All of his relatives say he would support the current HCR effort.

I would never believe he would support fucking the people in such a hideous manner

WTF ever.

did you know that man's soul?

Unless they can read her mind. :eyes:

:grr:

that passing it would mean the world to him. Did you Kennedy better?

That's a very, very arrogant thing to say considering the man is dead.

better than Vicki.

Health Care was Ted Kennedy's life long work, he knew to get it done, compromise was going to have to be part of the deal.

he wanted more, hell we all wanted more, but he understood you can not have it all, all the time, all at once

he would have voted for it, just as Bernie Sanders did, though he may not have preferred it in that form.

:shrug:

the last election, knowing they rigged the whole place to blow, on our watch.

That is why Boy George tried to let er ride till Obama took over. When it looked like McCain might win, he spilled the beans.

Mass OBVIOUSLY loved Teddy, they've voted for him for 46 freaking years.

but if she doesn't, it won't be because she supports the same bill Kennedy would've supported.

on the other hand how many terms was ted in the senate, with solid progressive credentals,
and a long record of standing up for the working class and the common man.
so even had ted voted for this he would have gotten a pass. coakley isn't ted tho.
that said i don't live in MA so my opinion is just my opinion.

He would have never let this happen. It's a direct result of his not shepherding this bill that we have such an abomination.

Don't be ridiculous.

Please. I don't need any bridges.

said he'd be for it, too.

I believe that with all my heart.

the question in the OP?

:shrug:

A popular incumbent can win with a policy-negative that would sink a marginal candidate with no margin of error.

(Also, folks in MA might have trusted the bill more if Kennedy was pushing it.)

I think she just thought she'd win without really trying.

if it's not HCR is it one particular issue or a combination of things. again i'm not in MA and haven't really followed this race except here at DU.

taking a "win" for granted. Making gaffes, saying things she probably shouldn't, etc.

You tell us what that's about if it isn't a referendum on mandated health insurance.

to Dems who opposed the stimulus package and were concerned about rising debt. None came out and told me they were voting for Brown but all seemed to think Congress had move too far to the left. I did not talk to one voter who was bothered by compromises made. I didn't call them that of course but I felt like I was talking to working people with a good aim at their own foot. Three volunteered that they got their news from FOX.

All of these responses came from men. Every woman I talked to planned to vote for Coakley except for one very elderly woman who told me she already had voted for Coakley by absentee.

thanks for the report.Did you talk to more men or more women?

If Coakley loses (which I don't think she will), that's why. Campaign hubris.

This is why I voted for Khazei in the primary.

I'm not one of those who thinks if she loses it will be because she supported the bill (like others have said).

do people think it's because he didn't try. and now people making up shit about how he would never have supported it. didn't Ted write about how he had regrets about not supporting something some years back because he didn't think it was good enough. but of course he saw how tough it is to get any little thing done.

a lot of stupid asses just making up shit to fit their agenda. it's the same line used by Palin and other wingnuts who claim Obama and other Dems won because the republicans weren't conservative enough.

saying that Ted Kennedy would never have endorsed Obama.

and that's the ultimate answer to your question.

the reason she may lose.

I've been against this bill ever since we lost a robust public option. Tying herself to it is like using an anchor for a necklace charm when going swimming.

It's the combination of all of the above that is sinking her.

She proved it by her about-face on voting for the HCR. It's not a good time to be the establishment candidate when people are suffering and the perception is that the people are being screwed by the corporations and the elites.

I think a lot of people are underestimating the immense anger out there against both parties. Brown is running as the outsider.

Specifically, from what I can recall, he was initially working with Nixon to get some health care reforms passed but ultimately he was persuaded (by the unions?) to give up on the moderate reforms that he was working with Nixon to try to get passed and wait until, as expected, the Democrats rode the post-Watergate wave into office in droves and could pass something even more progressive. Well, of course, the Congress post-Watergate was much more Democratic and Jimmy Carter won the WH in 1976 but nobody ever touched health care reform again until Bill and Hillary Clinton.

My gut tells me that he probably would've supported health care reform in its present form (even if reluctantly) but IMHO it's a tad presumptuous to try to speak for the dead- whom, of course, can no longer speak for themselves.

But to answer your hypothetical anyway, no, I don't believe that Kennedy would've lost in 2012 had he still been alive and supporting the current health care reform- but then again I'm not somebody who believes that Coakley is struggling because of health care reform either, so..............? :shrug:

It seems to me that some people are just really incensed about the current health care reform legislation and have taken to blaming all of the Democrats' present (and past) political woes on this year's health care reform legislation, the DLC, and, basically, just about any other Democrats whom are still mostly happy with and supportive of President Obama.

Kennedy would of won because he is well loved there with a huge history behind him, despite whatever approach he took on the bill. Talk about a worthless argument.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

as a tribute to the idiotic original post.

enough swimmer that he could have stayed afloat. Coakley looks like she doesn't have the strength to stay afloat and could easily lose. This is what happens when you let Lieberman and Nelson wipe their asses with your show-piece legislation.

A position on some bill either way would never have made a difference.

35 % would vote against him, the rest for him.

Same every time.