Massachusetts Senate Race

[Monkeydad]

Well, hearing Democrats speaking after the election and this morning, they just don't get it. They're blaming the loss on a bad candidate. Bad candidates have a history of success in Massachusetts. Brown won because a LOT of registered Democrats (Dems outnumber Repubs 3.5:1 in MA) wanted to send a message to the President and Congress...stop with the corruption, stop with the bribes and backroom tricks, start with some transparency and START LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE! Brown did not win because he was up against a bad candidate, he won because they don't want the bad Healthcare bill and they're sick of the arrogance. President Obama and Pelosi have been talking about ways to circumvent the system to push the bad bill through regardless of the election. Lets see if they have the egotism to try now. After NJ, VA, now Massachusetts, that's three major elections that the President has tried to influence and failed, likely hurting his candidate's chances in the process.

The fall elections are not going to be pretty for the Democrat party. If they still support the bad bill and dirty tactics, they're good as dead career-wise. Still, their actions and behaviors in the past year may have already sealed their fate.

Funny how a year after the President won on "Change", it was the same campaign used against him that started the dismantling of his party's power, except the opposition has substance in their arguments.

[firstdown]

Last night our club had our monthly meeting in my garage and after the meeting 3 of the guys stayed to play some darts. We turned on the TV to see what was going on right when they started calling the race. I turned the TV to MSNBC just to watch their coverage and we all got a good laugh at their spin on the win.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Last night our club had our monthly meeting in my garage and after the meeting 3 of the guys stayed to play some darts. We turned on the TV to see what was going on right when they started calling the race. I turned the TV to MSNBC just to watch their coverage and we all got a good laugh at their spin on the win.

Oh for sure. I got several good laughs off of MSNBC last night.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Oh for sure. I got several good laughs off of MSNBC last night.

Missed it... what was the Most Socialist Network BroadCast saying?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Missed it... what was the Most Socialist Network BroadCast saying?

Blaming it on the stupid voters and everyone else but Obama's agenda. Actually one guy (forgot his name) on the show used good common sense and talked about the Obama factor. The guys over my house wondered why I put it on MSNBC but after they started watching and laughing they figured out why.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Blaming it on the stupid voters and everyone else but Obama's agenda. Actually one guy (forgot his name) on the show used good common sense and talked about the Obama factor. The guys over my house wondered why I put it on MSNBC but after they started watching and laughing they figured out why.

any chance that the better candidate won? or are the Republicans doing what they had claimed the Dem's have done over the last 8 years, and just blame the sitting President? i know when i vote, i always choose, IMO, the most qualified person

[12thMan]

Here's my take on last night's election and where we might be headed.

First of all, I'm leaning with some of my Republican brothers about Coakley as a candidate. A female colleague was trying to write this lost off as a matter of gender bias. She didn't seem to get why people were so up in arms about Coakley confusing Curt Schilling as a Yankee fan. I told her the sports gaffe was totally relevant in this situation and shouldn't be dismissed as some gender bias. It was further confirmation in the minds of voters that Coakley was disconnected; a metaphor for how out of touch she was with the working class voters in Massachusetts. It simply reinforced the narrative that Coakley ran a campaign that operated as if it was privileged from the start and didn't have to invest in the daily grind of shaking hands and asking for votes. The results speak for themselves.

In terms of the larger picture, I think the message is clear but neither party should get too full of themselves. Republicans shouldn't be waiving the checkered flag and Democrats shouldn't be waving the white flag. People aren't as interested in party affliation as they are who's listening to them. And I think for pols to frame this any other way might be a tactical error. I like how Scott Brown is playing his victory from last night. He's come right out and said this isn't a referendum on President Obama. Even if it is, even if many of those voters are pissed at the president right now, it's a savvy move on Brown's part to play it the other way. It will give him more cred when he does have a legitimate gripe with the president's policies. That's the strategy that will work, in my opinion. On a side note, I think Mitt Romney was indirectly the biggest benefactor from last night's upset. If a Republican can win a senate seat held by a Democrat for decades, surely they can carry the state in a national election. Or conventional wisdom would go.

It's going to be uphill for Democrats from here on out; they have to adjust the sails. The winds are blowing in a different direction. Healthcare can still pass, but it's going to have to be scaled down and maybe done in increments. Who the hell knows really. The only saving grace for the party at large and the White House as we/I look forward to 2012, is that nobody is better at retail politics than Barack Obama. Not one Republican, not one Democrat. So when the time comes to campaign again, he's the best in the business. Lot's of work to get done between now and then though.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Here's my take on last night's election and where we might be headed.

First of all, I'm leaning with some of my Republican brothers about Coakley as a candidate. A female colleague was trying to write this lost off as a matter of gender bias. She didn't seem to get why people were so up in arms about Coakley confusing Curt Schilling as a Yankee fan. I told her the sports gaffe was totally relevant in this situation and shouldn't be dismissed as some gender bias. It was further confirmation in the minds of voters that Coakley was disconnected; a metaphor for how out of touch she was with the working class voters in Massachusetts. It simply reinforced the narrative that Coakley ran a campaign that operated as if it was privileged from the start and didn't have to invest in the daily grind of shaking hands and asking for votes. The results speak for themselves.

In terms of the larger picture, I think the message is clear but neither party should get too full of themselves. Republicans shouldn't be waiving the checkered flag and Democrats shouldn't be waving the white flag. People aren't as interested in party affliation as they are who's listening to them. And I think for pols to frame this any other way might be a tactical error. I like how Scott Brown is playing his victory from last night. He's come right out and said this isn't a referendum on President Obama. Even if it is, even if many of those voters are pissed at the president right now, it's a savvy move on Brown's part to play it the other way. It will give him more cred when he does have a legitimate gripe with the president's policies. That's the strategy that will work, in my opinion. On a side note, I think Mitt Romney was indirectly the biggest benefactor from last night's upset. If a Republican can win a senate seat held by a Democrat for decades, surely they can carry the state in a national election. Or conventional wisdom would go.

It's going to be uphill for Democrats from here on out; they have to adjust the sails. The winds are blowing in a different direction. Healthcare can still pass, but it's going to have to be scaled down and maybe done in increments. Who the hell knows really. The only saving grace for the party at large and the White House as we/I look forward to 2012, is that nobody is better at retail politics than Barack Obama. Not one Republican, not one Democrat. So when the time comes to campaign again, he's the best in the business. Lot's of work to get done between now and then though.

I'd say that true to a point but now that all eye's are on Obama and what he has or has not done it will make it much tougher in 2012. In the past election most people knew very little about him and they also seemed to ignore what little time he had in office and his voting record. He can no longer hide and will now have to answer more questions.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'd say that true to a point but now that all eye's are on Obama and what he has or has not done it will make it much tougher in 2012. In the past election most people knew very little about him and they also seemed to ignore what little time he had in office and his voting record. He can no longer hide and will now have to answer more questions.

First, gotta say I disagree. Obama and every candidate campaigned for two years. The media turned over every possible stone and explored every nook and cranny, whether it was personal or professional. Obama didn't advance because of his resume, he advance on his ideas and his world view. In fact, he tapped into the very voter angst that Scott Brown just rode to victory. In many ways it was the experience argument that voters rejected.

Poll: Obama still most trusted - David Catanese - POLITICO.com

Look First, when this administration screws up I'm big enough to take my medicine like a man and own up to it - or at least I try. I have some criticisms, but I wholeheardtly believe this president is our best option and not to sound corny, our best hope. There, I said it. Was the Brown defeat a huge blow, hell yes! But it's going to cut both ways. Republicans are now obligated, in a sense, to work with Congress and the president on some key issues. If they think they can just oppose, oppose, oppose, and cry socialist or marxist or whatever the new talking point is this week, I think it's going to bite them in the ass.

Secondly, I've said once and I'll say it again, which ever candidate you roll out in 2012 is going to go through hell and high water in terms of being vetted. It's going to be excruciating. For a lot of different reasons. But chief among them is a guy name John Edwards. Can you imagine if this guy pulls off Iowa? Or Obama picks him to be Veep? Talk about disaster. Hell, Obama should get re-elected just for avoiding Edwards. Unless your name is Mitt Romney, I really feel sorry for whomever is thinking about running in 2012.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

First, gotta say I disagree. Obama and every candidate campaigned for two years. The media turned over every possible stone and explored every nook and cranny, whether it was personal or professional. Obama didn't advance because of his resume, he advance on his ideas and his world view. In fact, he tapped into the very voter angst that Scott Brown just rode to victory. In many ways it was the experience argument that voters rejected.

Poll: Obama still most trusted - David Catanese - POLITICO.com

Look First, when this administration screws up I'm big enough to take my medicine like a man and own up to it - or at least I try. I have some criticisms, but I wholeheardtly believe this president is our best option and not to sound corny, our best hope. There, I said it. Was the Brown defeat a huge blow, hell yes! But it's going to cut both ways. Republicans are now obligated, in a sense, to work with Congress and the president on some key issues. If they think they can just oppose, oppose, oppose, and cry socialist or marxist or whatever the new talking point is this week, I think it's going to bite them in the ass.

Secondly, I've said once and I'll say it again, which ever candidate you roll out in 2012 is going to go through hell and high water in terms of being vetted. It's going to be excruciating. For a lot of different reasons. But chief among them is a guy name John Edwards. Can you imagine if this guy pulls off Iowa? Or Obama picks him to be Veep? Talk about disaster. Hell, Obama should get re-elected just for avoiding Edwards. Unless your name is Mitt Romney, I really feel sorry for whomever is thinking about running in 2012.

The only media that turned over any rocks looking into Obama was right leaning news places like Fox and others. Main stream media did not. You post that poll but look at the number and he has gone from 68 to 50%. If you look at his agenda numbers they are even much worse. You say the Rep. just oppose, oppose, oppose, but what else can they do when they are locked out of the debate on health ins. Remember those doors that Obama said over 10 times would be open and broadcast on C-span as part of this change in Washington.

[Monkeydad]

I bet Olberman will be raging about "teabaggers" tonight...not that I'll tune in.

If the GOP are "teabaggers", according to him, the President and Democrats just became the "tea-bagees".

Only liberals could take something as pure as a Revolution to get public officials to listen to the people and twist it into perversion like that.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Buster

I bet Olberman will be raging about "teabaggers" tonight...not that I'll tune in.

If the GOP are "teabaggers", according to him, the President and Democrats just became the "tea-bagees".

Only liberals could take something as pure as a Revolution to get public officials to listen to the people and twist it into perversion like that.

I heard the teabagger word used more then once last night but I laughed at them so hard last night my side won't take laughing that hard two nights in a row. I bet there is more then a handful of Dems who voted for HC reform who probably glad that he won to bail them out.

[12thMan]

Here's the polling data.


MoveOn.org Political Action: Democracy in Action

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Here's the polling data.


MoveOn.org Political Action: Democracy in Action

I would not use any poll from move on.

[firstdown]

Funny last night I saw an interview with Obama and he actually blamed this in part on Bush. The funny thing was right as the short interview came on I told my wife I bet he blames Bush. Sure enough not one minute into the interview he did.