Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
If Brown wins the so-called "Kennedy seat" in Massachusetts for the U.S. Senate, will it sound an ominous warning for other Democrats, in both House and Senate?
Might the other leftists say, "Hmmm, Coakley had a huge lead. But the biggest difference between her and Brown was that she supported Obamacare and Brown declared he was against it. And even the huge lead of a far-left liberal, in a far-left liberal state, wasn't enough to overcome the preference of the far-left voters there... they tossed her out, mostly because of how she would vote on Obamacare.
"Now, do I REALLY want to vote FOR Obamacare in the next vote? My liberal margin isn't even as big as Coakley's was at first, and there have been more TEA parties held in my district than she ever had.
"Uh-oh. Better make a phone call to (Reid or Pelosi, whichever), and extend to them my sincerest apologies, but I won't be able to vote for Obamacare after all, so sorry...."
Even if Brown doesn't win (I have no idea whether he will or not), but comes within a few percent of Coakley after trailing by a 2-to-1 margin or worse earlier, will that send the same message anyway to Democrats trying to get re-elected, in less-liberal districts than Massachusetts?
Even if Brown loses, this Mass special election might spell the defeat of Obamacare, as voters show Congress what happens to candidates who support socialistic health care bills.
Some Congressional Dems have been saying that, if Brown wins, they'll either hold up seating him in the Senate until after the Health Care final vote, or they will try to ram the already-passed Senate bill through the House without changes, thus avoiding any further Senate vote.
But if Brown wins this election, even if he doesn't get a chance to vote on the Health Care bill because of those maneuvers, might his victory (or even near-victory) cause some House or Senate Dems to change their vote, out of sheer self-preservation?
Might the other leftists say, "Hmmm, Coakley had a huge lead. But the biggest difference between her and Brown was that she supported Obamacare and Brown declared he was against it. And even the huge lead of a far-left liberal, in a far-left liberal state, wasn't enough to overcome the preference of the far-left voters there... they tossed her out, mostly because of how she would vote on Obamacare.
"Now, do I REALLY want to vote FOR Obamacare in the next vote? My liberal margin isn't even as big as Coakley's was at first, and there have been more TEA parties held in my district than she ever had.
"Uh-oh. Better make a phone call to (Reid or Pelosi, whichever), and extend to them my sincerest apologies, but I won't be able to vote for Obamacare after all, so sorry...."
Even if Brown doesn't win (I have no idea whether he will or not), but comes within a few percent of Coakley after trailing by a 2-to-1 margin or worse earlier, will that send the same message anyway to Democrats trying to get re-elected, in less-liberal districts than Massachusetts?
Even if Brown loses, this Mass special election might spell the defeat of Obamacare, as voters show Congress what happens to candidates who support socialistic health care bills.
Some Congressional Dems have been saying that, if Brown wins, they'll either hold up seating him in the Senate until after the Health Care final vote, or they will try to ram the already-passed Senate bill through the House without changes, thus avoiding any further Senate vote.
But if Brown wins this election, even if he doesn't get a chance to vote on the Health Care bill because of those maneuvers, might his victory (or even near-victory) cause some House or Senate Dems to change their vote, out of sheer self-preservation?