Mass Election

[Usually Lurkin]

Drudge reporting that Coakley has conceded.

wow.

Is it a decision point for the far left national govt (or will they delay Brown to get their socialism through?

Is it a decision point for the media (or will they keep poking fun at "teabaggers")?

Is it a decision point for the RNC (or will they continue to be befuddled by tea partiers)?

[92bDad]

Regardless, the Dems need to back off of their elitism and actually listen to the voice of the people.

Republicans, need to remain humble...this result is not a vote for Republicans, but more of a statement against Obama and the Democrats.

The Tea Party movement needs to do it's best to remain party neutral, and simply be a voice from the people.

All that said, this is a victory towards the right change and a statement to Obama that he has given us the wrong change.

Best of fortunes to our nation as we move forward and actually allow our country to be governed by the people.

[Kirobaito]

All politics is local. Coakley didn't bother running a campaign until the last week, and she never fully had the support of the state party (they wanted Capuano). Brown spent a ton to campaign early and often, he tapped into the South Shore Irish Catholics, a demographic that Coakley ignored - actually, scratch that. Coakley ignored every demographic. Despite your efforts to push otherwise, this was an election about Massachusetts, and Brown did a far superior job campaigning in Massachusetts, running a campaign that was all about personality and charisma (which he has in spades) and not really about issues (considering he's antithetical to what most people in Massachusetts have ever voted for on most things except abortion). He won't get re-elected in 2012, a presidential year where the Democratic machine will be much more enthusiastic.

Now somehow we're back to stasis, where 41 individuals who are doing everything they can to sabotage the country for their own political benefit have control over everything. God, I hate Senate rules.

[Flacolaco]

Um....it's still 100 individuals doing everything they can to sabotage the country for their own political benefit. Not 41.

[dude1394]

This election was NOT local. This was most definitely a referendum on washington.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

All politics is local. Coakley didn't bother running a campaign until the last week, and she never fully had the support of the state party (they wanted Capuano). Brown spent a ton to campaign early and often, he tapped into the South Shore Irish Catholics, a demographic that Coakley ignored - actually, scratch that. Coakley ignored every demographic. Despite your efforts to push otherwise, this was an election about Massachusetts, and Brown did a far superior job campaigning in Massachusetts, running a campaign that was all about personality and charisma (which he has in spades) and not really about issues (considering he's antithetical to what most people in Massachusetts have ever voted for on most things except abortion). He won't get re-elected in 2012, a presidential year where the Democratic machine will be much more enthusiastic.

Denial of reality doesn't change it.

Now somehow we're back to stasis, where 41 individuals who are doing everything they can to sabotage the country for their own political benefit have control over everything. God, I hate Senate rules.

The irony in this statement is unbelievable. THE reason Brown was elected is because Massachusetts voters (or the 52/47 majority of them) believe that the Democrats are doing everything they can to sabotage the country. And I'm pretty sure that unless something substantially changes, you're going to find out that the majority of the COUNTRY believes that -- really bad news for the Dems and their 2010 election hopes.

[dalmations202]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Flacolaco again.

[DirkFTW]

Hitler finds out Coakley lost.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

All politics is local. Coakley didn't bother running a campaign until the last week, and she never fully had the support of the state party (they wanted Capuano). Brown spent a ton to campaign early and often, he tapped into the South Shore Irish Catholics, a demographic that Coakley ignored - actually, scratch that. Coakley ignored every demographic. Despite your efforts to push otherwise, this was an election about Massachusetts, and Brown did a far superior job campaigning in Massachusetts, running a campaign that was all about personality and charisma (which he has in spades) and not really about issues (considering he's antithetical to what most people in Massachusetts have ever voted for on most things except abortion). He won't get re-elected in 2012, a presidential year where the Democratic machine will be much more enthusiastic.

Now somehow we're back to stasis, where 41 individuals who are doing everything they can to sabotage the country for their own political benefit have control over everything. God, I hate Senate rules.

You missed saying it was because the state doesn't elect women like some of the other whistling in the graveyard deniers were saying last night. Let me guess, if a Senator agrees with your view on an issue they are altruistic patriots?

[Big Boy Laroux]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

THE reason Brown was elected is because Massachusetts voters (or the 52/47 majority of them) believe that the Democrats are doing everything they can to sabotage the country.

i might agree with this if the democrats had done ANYTHING so far. They've had the majority for some time now and have literally done nothing. Pelosi and Reid are far too concerned with their own damn careers that they've submarined any efforts by democrats that actually do want to make changes.

Hell, Republicans didn't have the majority during the Bush years that the democrats have had recently and it sure seemed like stuff was getting passed then.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

i might agree with this if the democrats had done ANYTHING so far. They've had the majority for some time now and have literally done nothing. Pelosi and Reid are far too concerned with their own damn careers that they've submarined any efforts by democrats that actually do want to make changes.

Hell, Republicans didn't have the majority during the Bush years that the democrats have had recently and it sure seemed like stuff was getting passed then.

I don't really understand your argument. Are you saying that if Coakley were elected, health care still wouldn't have passed?

[Rhylan]

Their agenda is so ambitious, extreme, and impractical that even with supermajorities, they couldn't get it done. Doesn't make it any more palatable to voters - they're going to vote out the party in power if they don't like the direction the party in power wants to take, even if that party hasn't fully succeeded on cap & trade, health care, etc. And particularly if they show persistence in the face of waning public support for their initiatives (like with health care).

It's like shooting an intruder in your house before he shoots you. You're not going to say "this guy sucks, even with a loaded gun and the element of surprise, he still didn't shoot me right away. So I guess I'll let him slide." No, you shoot his ass.

DC Dems just got capped.

Question is where do they go from here... they can save a little face and maybe hold a few more seats than they otherwise would in November (but satisfy their base very little), or they can keep pushing ahead in spite of everything and face potential devastation in November.

[Big Boy Laroux]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I don't really understand your argument. Are you saying that if Coakley were elected, health care still wouldn't have passed?

it wasn't really an argument. I was just piggybacking on your statement to state my complete disgust with the dem leaders.

and now that you say that, i'm sure that even if coakley had been elected, yes, they would have found some way to screw everything up.