Massachusetts Senate Race

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

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

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.

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 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. :pffff:

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. :pffff:
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.

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

I think it's just as much about how poor of a candidate Coakley was as it is how more and more registered Dems are tired of this agenda. I've even heard that some Dems are responding to health care bill opposition by saying it just hasn't been explained to the people well enough. Meh. Orrrrrrr, could it be they just don't like the bill? Good old progressives. They suffer from Brian Billick Syndrome. They always know best.

Here's the polling data.


MoveOn.org Political Action: Democracy in Action (http://pol.moveon.org/brownpoll/results.html)

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.

Here's the polling data.


MoveOn.org Political Action: Democracy in Action (http://pol.moveon.org/brownpoll/results.html)

I would not use any poll from move on.