I think your main error here is thinking of "the Democrats" as a single generic blob. The group of Senators who support the things you say you want may or may not have a simple majority (certainly so for health care, probably a little short of a majority for rights) but absolutely do not have a filibuster-proof majority. I addressed this in my post above: this is why you see people like Snowe and Lieberman (and Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln) have so much power to ruin anything decent Congress tries to pass.
Electing Coakley will leave us in approximately the same place we have been. We can then try to make some real improvements in 2012 (for example, Lieberman is up in 2012).
Electing Brown would be disastrous. Lieberman & Snowe will have that much more power to make everything Congress passes in the next couple of years that much worse, and we'll live with the consequences of that for a long time.
Since health care is one of your priorities, note what I said above: One likely effect of electing Brown would be that the Senate's crappier version of health care reform would have to be passed as is, eliminating any chances of the House improving it with elements of their far superior bill.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2010-01-19 19:51 (UTC)Electing Coakley will leave us in approximately the same place we have been. We can then try to make some real improvements in 2012 (for example, Lieberman is up in 2012).
Electing Brown would be disastrous. Lieberman & Snowe will have that much more power to make everything Congress passes in the next couple of years that much worse, and we'll live with the consequences of that for a long time.
Since health care is one of your priorities, note what I said above: One likely effect of electing Brown would be that the Senate's crappier version of health care reform would have to be passed as is, eliminating any chances of the House improving it with elements of their far superior bill.