Massachusetts Senate Race

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Wolfeskins, you're wrong on both accounts. Respectfully. First, the exit polling in both the Virginia and N.J races were not a referundum on the president or his agenda. It was and still is primarily about the respective candidates themselves and the local issues in those states. In the case of Creigh Deeds, as I've stated before, and in the case of Martha Coakley both campaigns left a lot to be desired.

On the second point, Obama stumped for Coakley yesterday at Northeastern University. They used footage from that event; Obama didn't tape a commercial for her. It's her commercial and her voice endorsing said ad at the end. I think for people to try to connect the dots from these two or three races and come to some conclusion about the president's agenda is premature and not realizing most importantly that politics are local. This is the ebb and flow of politics and elections in an off year for incumbent candidates.

Are Democrats in trouble? With each day that passes, that's becoming more and more appearant. But to say this spells trouble in 2012 for President Obama is wishful thinking, in my opinion. It takes a horse to beat a horse, and so far the Republicans have produced a lot of show ponies.

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

My vote was.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Wolfeskins, you're wrong on both accounts. Respectfully. First, the exit polling in both the Virginia and N.J races were not a referundum on the president or his agenda. It was and still is primarily about the respective candidates themselves and the local issues in those states. In the case of Creigh Deeds, as I've stated before, and in the case of Martha Coakley both campaigns left a lot to be desired.

On the second point, Obama stumped for Coakley yesterday at Northeastern University. They used footage from that event; Obama didn't tape a commercial for her. It's her commercial and her voice endorsing said ad at the end. I think for people to try to connect the dots from these two or three races and come to some conclusion about the president's agenda is premature and not realizing most importantly that politics are local. This is the ebb and flow of politics and elections in an off year for incumbent candidates.

Are Democrats in trouble? With each day that passes, that's becoming more and more appearant. But to say this spells trouble in 2012 for President Obama is wishful thinking, in my opinion. It takes a horse to beat a horse, and so far the Republicans have produced a lot of show ponies.

Originally Posted by saden1

Don't count your chickens before they hatch folks. Little known fact....every year 200 million male chicks hare killed right after they hatch. Why you ask? Because they can't lay eggs.

This post is in the memory of Doug Hoffman and all the republican losers of all the special elections.

Originally Posted by GMScud

I agree that the Republicans don't have a "horse" so to speak, but really, is Obama anything more than a "show pony" himself? He's proven to be more style than substance thus far. He ran a campaign just left of center and has governed from the far left. He's been in steady decline in the polls since his inauguration. Someone will emerge from the GOP, and by the time 2012 rolls around, Obama's re-election won't be nearly the slam dunk many Dems think. IMO anyway.

Originally Posted by GMScud

Seems like Pelosi knows it's done. Hell, other Dems in congress are openly criticizing Coakley. Barney Frank called out some of her mistakes today. Obviously it ain't over till it's over, but if I had to guess, Brown wins by 3-5 points. Her campaign was a laughing stock, and with so much at stake, she should be ashamed of herself, especially considering the Lion-size shoes she's trying to fill.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I don't know what Obama you're referring to, but the one in the White House right now is hardly governing from the far left. Even many on the right would agree much of his foreign policy is line with the previous administration. He's doubled, heck trippled, downed in Afghanistan, stepped up attacks in Pakistan and Yemen (before the Christmas Day attempt). He voted to keep FISA, still a very controversial Bush program, largely in tact to the dismay of many on the far left. It sounds nice to say "Obama is a far left radical", but his policy decisions so far just don't bear that out.

I also find it difficult to believe that men of high regard like Secretery of Defense Robert Gates, NSA Jim Jones, and John Brennan would serve in an adminstration that was governing the country from the far left on national security issues.

Domestically, what, healthcare is far left? If that's far left, I think that's an issue he won't have a problem with in 2012. I agree, re-election won't be a slam dunk, they never are.