And I agree. Because even though Kennedy championed this health care legislation, Massachusetts didn’t elect a Dem this time around. That’s how democracy works.

From The Hill…

“In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process,” Webb said in a statement. “To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”

The statement from the centrist Webb is a warning shot to Democratic leaders who are now forced to confront how to move forward with health reform efforts and other top priorities in the wake of Brown’s victory. Republicans now control 41 votes in the Senate, meaning they will have enough votes to sustain a filibuster if they all stick together.

The issue is critically important to healthcare, as well. Some lawmakers had talked about rushing to finish their health reform efforts before Brown could be seated, which could take as long as 10 to 15 days under Massachusetts law.

However, the other part of democracy is that Brown won by 52% to 47%.

So if a simple majority is good enough for Massachusetts, it’s good enough for health care legislation.

Yes, going that route will be painful. But that’s where we’re at now.

The results aren’t final yet, but it looks like Brown is going to win 52% to 47%.

And you have to hand it to him. He ran a great campaign and defeated the favorite Martha Coakley in a race that many Democrats thought would be a cake walk.

But let’s remember that Republicans being elected in this state isn’t without precedent. After all, Mitt Romney was Massachusetts’ Governor and passed mandated healthcare that looks a lot like what Obama and the Dems are trying to pass now.

Here’s more info from Rasmussen:

• 78% of Brown voters Strongly Oppose the health care legislation before Congress.
• 52% of Coakley supporters Strongly Favor the health care plan. Another 41% Somewhat Favor the legislation.
• 61% of Brown voters say deficit reduction is more important than health care reform.
• 46% of Coakley voters say health care legislation more important than deficit reduction.
• 86% of Coakley voters say it’s better to pass the bill before Congress rather than nothing at all.
• 88% of Brown voters say it’s better to pass nothing at all.

So this paves the way for the “Obamacare is dead” meme to take shape…even though this is one Senate race. And hey, if this is what kills healthcare reform, then this is what kills it. But I think everybody should realize what killing it means…ZERO progress on one of the most important issues that continues to drive us further and further into debt. And this after the CBO said this plan would reduce our budget deficits.

And if you think Republicans are going to go for the Wyden-Bennett bill, you’re crazy. That’s pipe dream legislation. Americans believe their healthcare should be tied to employment and that’s not going to change any time soon.

One last note…going back to the health care mandate that was passed in Masschusetts by Romney…the state has the lowest percentage of uninsured in the nation (right around 4%) and has covered an additional 439,000 residents.

More as it develops…

Is there a better political story than the Brown/Coakley special election in Massachusetts? This is a much more exciting contest than either of the playoff games on Sunday. The latest (and last) Public Policy Poll has Brown up by 5 points, the Merriam River Group has him up by 9.7% and a Massachusetts bellweather city poll has him up by 15 points. This live Pollster.com graph is a composite of all polls:

While those crossed hockey sticks are pretty compelling, the outcome remains uncertain. Nate Silver explains why…

… then expands on the risks of trendspotting here. Charlie Cook, like Nate Silver still calls it a toss-up, but unlike Nate, is leaning to Brown. Regardless of whether you agree or trust their political leanings, these are smart analysts. I suspect they are right and this will be a very close race. After all, this is still Massachusetts.

The simple reality is this: Boston is a Democratic party machine city, and Massachusetts is a Democratic state. A political machine is designed to manufacture votes. No need to invoke anything illegal, just basic old style, precinct by precinct footwork, “walking around money”, busloads of voters rounded up and driven to the polls, preachers in the pulpits delivering the flock, etc. No matter how large the enthusiasm gap in a campaign, nothing can get out the vote more effectively than an army of foot soldiers on the ground manning a well oiled political machine. The question in Massachusetts is whether the machine was greased and ready, or whether Dems could crank it up fast enough once they knew they had a problem. OTOH, if the foot soldiers decide to change teams or desert their posts, the machine does not work as well. Another question is whether Libertarian candidate Joseph Kennedy will siphon a couple of percentage points from Brown (or Coakley). This election cannot be predicted and will likely be a nail biter. Maybe even Al Franken close and settled in the courts.

The last big effort to turn back the Scott Brown tide was in evidence all weekend. It had two tracks, a high road, and a low road.

On the high road, President Obama arrived to headline a rally of Democratic Party luminaries stumping for Martha Coakley. Among them, Representative Patrick Kennedy, who explained that, a vote for Scott Brown is really a vote for George W. Bush, and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino who denounced the “dot coms” that are pouring money into Browns campaign. Scott Brown held a competing event, billed the “Peoples Rally” where he drew as big a crowd as the president, favoring local heroes like Curt Schilling and Doug Flutie over Republican pols. His comments from the rally here.

On the low road, the Massachusetts Democratic Party distributed a glossy mass mailer falsely claiming that Scott Brown wants hospitals to turn away rape victims. It was denounced by liberals and conservatives alike and may prompt a defamation lawsuit. Closer to the norm of electioneering partisan nonsense, a 2008 you tube clip with Brown questioning whether Obama’s mother was married was widely distributed across the left-o-sphere. The intent was apparently to link Brown to birthers. The charge itself was quite a reach, and didn’t stick, but not for lack of trying. Even a Nobel Prize winning economist chose to cheapen his New York Times column, using it as a platform for distributing this pure partisan hackery.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner concludes that the electorate’s preference for divided and balanced government is one of “Two factors will decide Massachusetts Senate race”:”

HOPE (for divided government) floats. I am getting a tingly feeling in my leg.

UPDATE: Nate Silver throws in the towel – 538 Model Posits Brown as 3:1 Favorite

ELECTION DAY UPDATE:
This is what I’m tracking: The prediction market at InTrade.com showed Brown with an 80% probability of winning early, dropping to 60% (a big bet on Coakley?) now rising again back over 80%. If you buy into the notion that a robust prediction market with real people betting real money is the best poll, this looks like a done deal (click graphic for current graph).

Here’s hoping this political wave makes it to the left coast and a return to divided government.

^{x-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“}

This is not a TV ad, but was delivered by e-mail and on the web:

While the polls remain tight, there is evidence of an emerging groundswell of support for Coakley among Massachusetts Democrats.

UPDATE: Word is, the president is going “all-in” and will be campaigning for Coakley in Massachusetts on Sunday. We’ll soon see if he can still play a winning hand.

This moment from the Massachusetts Senate debate is getting a lot of play:

“It’s not Ted Kennedy’s seat. It’s not the Democrat’s seat. It’s the people’s seat.”

If Brown wins, this may be the moment that put him over the top. Over a million dollars flowed into his campaign coffers in the 24 hours after the debate. The Democratic party establishment took note and sent out a call for cavalry. Of course Big Union is riding to the rescue. But in the meantime, while Coakley is measuring the drapes in Washington D.C., Brown is on the ground in Massachusetts.

Watching from afar out here on the left coast, I have a hard time believing that Massachusetts would elect a Republican to finish Ted Kennedy’s term in the Senate. It seems as unlikely as unseating my Representative Nancy Pelosi or Senator Barbara Boxer in the upcoming mid-terms. Just not a good bet.

There were some interesting insights on this election in the comments to Frank’s post on the race. In terms of prognostications, I’ll defer to our man on the ground and agree with Kranky. The Dems may get a scare, but on election night Martha Coakley will prevail. As Nick points out, all this national attention and the tightening polls should serve to motivate the rank and file Democrats to get out the vote. Excitement about their candidate being heretofore the very thing that is missing from the Democratic campaign. Scott Brown is givng them the gift of panic excitement.

That said, Scott Brown is doing some very smart things. Challenging Massachusetts voters to rethink the notion that this senate seat is an entitlement of the Democratic Party was exactly the right thing to do. In addition, he is soft pedaling the commitment required by voters, noting there are only three years left in the term. Saying in effect – Just try it out for while. If you don’t like it you don’t have to buy. Very smart salesmanship – first deal with the objection, then make it easy to sign on the dotted line.

It will still be a miracle if he pulls it off, but if he does I’ll have to change my prediction for 2010. Who knows? If the GOP can pick up this seat, four more seems reasonable, and if Joe Lieberman gets tired of his abusive relationship with the Democrats, well, that means a new majority in the Senate in 2011.

Dare I even dream the impossible dream? Replacing Barbara Boxer with Carly Fiorina?

If Brown can win in Massachusetts, anything can happen.

^{cross-posted at Divided We Stand United We Fall}

“Having two parents who can feel and express love for each other, and give it in abundance to their children, that’s what matters. It doesn’t matter what the identities of those parents are.”
- Heidi Nortonsmith, one of the original gay couples to marry in Massachusetts in 2004.

Here’s more about how things have gone for the past 5 years…

At the time of those first weddings, the debate was red-hot — protests were frequent, expectations ran high that legislators would allow a referendum on whether to overturn the court ruling ordering same-sex marriage. Now, although Roman Catholic leaders and some conservative activists remain vocally opposed, there is overwhelming political support for same-sex marriage and no prospect for a referendum.

According to the latest state figures, through September 2008, there had been 12,167 same-sex marriages in Massachusetts — 64 percent of them between women — out of 170,209 marriages in all. Some consequences have been tangible — a boom for gay-friendly wedding businesses, the exit of a Roman Catholic charity from the adoption business — and some almost defy description.

“Having your committed relationships recognized — to say it’s deeply meaningful is to trivialize it,” said Mary Bonauto, lead lawyer in the landmark lawsuit. “I know people who’d been together 20 years who say, ‘Getting married — it knocked my socks off.’”

Still there are issues that these folks have to deal with, not the least of which is that their unions aren’t recognized federally. So that creates a whole host of problems, not the least of which is taxation. And with a president in the White House who claims he doesn’t think gays should be allowed to get married, it might be a long time before these problems are solved.

New Hampshire was expected, but still a swing state in the grand scheme of things.

The others were not surprises in the least.

A total of 56 electoral votes.

Yesterday is was former Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson…

Carlson said Thursday that the Illinois senator’s stances on the Iraq war, the economy and green energy goals won him over. Carlson, who served from 1991 to 1998, also cited recent comments by GOP Congresswoman Michele Bachmann questioning whether politicians have “pro-America or anti-America views.”

“Regardless of our party, regardless of our partisan inclinations, there is no interest more compelling than the interest in the well-being of the United States,” Carlson said at a gathering of Obama supporters at the state Capitol.

Carlson added, “He has laid out for this nation a vision for a national purpose.”

Today it’s Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld…

“Senator Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who will transform our politics and restore America’s standing in the world,” Weld said in a statement released Friday. “We need a president who will lead based on our common values and Senator Obama demonstrates an ability to unite and inspire.

“Throughout this campaign I’ve watched his steady leadership through trying times and I’m confident he is the best candidate to move our country forward,” Weld said. [...]

Last year, Weld came to New Hampshire to campaign for another former Massachusetts governor, Republican Mitt Romney, who ended his bid for the presidential nomination in February.

And so it goes…

Another former DNC chair lines up.

From The Page:

Chicago, IL – Today, Former Democratic National Committee Chair and Massachusetts supderdelegate Paul G. Kirk, Jr. endorsed Barack Obama.

The endorsement brings the total number of superdelegates to endorse Barack Obama to 253. Senator Obama is 279 delegates away from securing the Democratic nomination.

This puts Obama at 16 to 11 in superdelegate pickups post-PA.

Numbers after the jump.

Obama superdelegate pickups:
Paul G. Kirk, Jr. (MA), DNC – May 2, 2008
John Patrick (TX), DNC – May 1, 2008
Barbara Flynn Currie (IL), DNC – May 1, 2008
Todd Stroger (IL), DNC – May 1, 2008
Richard M. Daley (IL), DNC – May 1, 2008
Joe Andrew (IN), DNC – May 1, 2008
Bruce Braley (IA), Representative – Apr 30, 2008
Lois Capps (CA), Representative – Apr 30, 2008
Baron Hill (IN), Representative – Apr 30, 2008
Ben Chandler (KY), Representative – Apr 29, 2008
Richard Machacek (IA), DNC – Apr 29, 2008
Jeff Bingaman (NM), Senator – Apr 28, 2008
Charlene Fernandez (AZ), DNC & State Vice Chair – Apr 26, 2008
David Wu (OR), Representative – Apr 24, 2008
Audra Ostergard (NE), DNC & State Vice Chair – Apr 23, 2008
Brad Henry (OK), Governor – Apr 23, 2008

Clinton superdelegate pickups:
Andrew Cuomo (NY), DNC – May 1, 2008
Thomas DiNapoli (NY), DNC – May 1, 2008
C. Virginia Field (NY), DNC – May 1, 2008
Carmen Arroyo (NY), DNC – May 1, 2008
John Olsen (CT), DNC – May 1, 2008
Luisette Cabanas (PR), DNC & Territory Vice Chair – Apr 30, 2008
William George (PA), DNC – Apr 30, 2008
Ike Skelton (MO), Representative, Apr 29, 2008
Mike Easley (NC), Governor – Apr 28, 2008
Kathy Sullivan (NH), Add-On – Apr 26, 2008
John Tanner (TN), Representative – Apr 23, 2008

Gay couples who married in Massachusetts but live in other states are having trouble getting divorced. It seems, early on, Massachusetts allowed out-of-state couples to get married there but currently does not allow gay divorces unless the couple establishes a year of residency in the state. Since other states do not permit gay marriages, they don’t offer divorces either.

Interestingly, while the concept of marriage is intertwined in religious traditions, the concept of divorce is a much more secular construct. I’m sure some states would completely reject the notion of allowing gay divorces on the principle that granting divorces is too close to recognizing gay marriage. However, if two consenting adults want to separate their belongings and obligations, who cares what gender they are? There is arguably a greater public interest in the state allowing for legal gay separation than legal gay union. A couple who cannot legally separate will either burden the legal system or resort to less legal solutions – both of which are less desirable than simply letting them go their separate ways.

Conceivably, we could be closer to widespread legalized gay divorce than we are to widespread legalized gay marriage. I’d prefer to keep the discussion on the legalization of gay marriage but I guess those of us who support such changes must also accept the necessary evil of gay divorce.

And yes, I do support gay marriage. You may now revoke my rightwing echo chamber credentials.

I agree with Josh Marshall. The Clintons are trying to spin Obama loss in Massachusetts, but he made up a ton of ground in a very short amount of time.

From TPM:

In our poll tracker, we have six polls of the Massachusetts race going back to January 17th. One of those had Obama ahead, and that was by two points, though admittedly it was one of the most recent. Yes, he had both senators behind him as well as the governor. But Obama also went from being behind by something like two to one margin a couple weeks ago to a much closer race. What’s true is that there were a slew of states — Massachusetts, New Jersey and California come to mind. Had Obama been able to grab one of those, it would have been a big punch for him. It would have been really bad for Hillary. And it really would have defined the night. But he wasn’t able to pull it off. Seems like he kind of did in Missouri. But that’s not quite in the same category. In any case, there’s a ton of spin from both sides right now, especially furious since this was so close in so many ways. But the Obama had to win Massachusetts line is just silly.

Indeed, although Missouri might be a bigger story because we nearly always pick the eventual nominee. That shouldn’t be ignored.

MSNBC just called it.

Big win for Hillary since Kennedy and Kerry backed Obama.

First the national poll from Gallup, which shows that last week Clinton was up by 16 points. Now the gap is 6 points.

Clinton 42% (-2)
Obama 36% (+3)
Edwards 12% (-2)

Then Kennedy’s endorsement has helped Obama in Massachusetts…

A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the Massachusetts Democratic Presidential Primary finds Hillary Clinton attracting 43% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 37%. The survey was conducted on the night that Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama but before John Edwards dropped out of the race.

Next, California shows signs of swinging Obama’s way…

The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of California’s Democratic Presidential Primary shows Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama by five percentage points. It’s Clinton 38% Obama 33% and John Edwards at 12%. Dennis Kucinich picks up 3% of the vote and 13% are not sure.

Obama is also gaining in New York…

A new poll from Public Policy Polling (D) shows that Barack Obama might be sneaking up on Hillary Clinton in her home state of New York. Hillary leads with 45% of the vote, followed by Obama at 33% and John Edwards with 10%. In the demographic breakdown, Hillary leads 44%-29% among whites, Obama 44%-32% among African-Americans, and Hillary 64%-31% among Hispanics.

And he’s tied in Connecticut…

New York Senator Hillary Clinton attracts 40% of the vote and so does Illinois Senator Barack Obama. John Edwards is a very distant third at 11% while 3% say they’d vote for some other candidate and 6% are not sure.

Lastly, Rasmussen proposes an interesting scenario…

Today, Clinton is leading in most of the Super Tuesday states and is expected to walk away from February 5 with more delegates than anyone else. But, since the Democrats award delegates proportionally, Obama will pick up a decent share as well. John Edwards will get some too.

Add to that the fact that 20% of the delegates are so-called Super Delegates–Democratic National Committee members, members of Congress, Governors, and other party leaders formally unpledged to any candidate. Theoretically, any candidate who wins 30% of the delegates through Primaries and Caucuses could end up grabbing the nomination with the support of the Super Delegates. For Obama, that becomes even more possible if he were to ultimately win the endorsement of John Edwards.

It is now possible to imagine a scenario where Senator Clinton wins battle after battle, primary after primary, but loses the nomination. If the Democratic Party establishment becomes disenchanted with the tone of her campaign, anything could happen. Eventually, Obama would have to win some more primaries, but a few late victories could be enough to win the hearts and votes of the Super Delegates.

One thing’s for sure. There’s still a lot of time between now and Tuesday. Actually, almost an eternity in this wild primary season. Will Obama continue to close on Hillary?

More as it develops.