Coakley, because unlike most people, I vote strictly on issues, and don’t care a bit about who called whom a Yankees fan. =/
She wasn’t my choice in the primary, but I think Capuano annoyed too many people being argumentative in the debate while Coakley just kept her mouth shut. That works real well when keeping your mouth shut means “let your competition tear each other down” but less well when it means “Let your competition walk all over you.”
Thanks for answering.
I think most people in MA voted on issues.
Or tell ourselves we do. Like anyone else.
I agree. And as someone who’s mostly voted Democrat since about 2000, I don’t think that’s a bad thing, the “Blue Dog” democrat is not particularly useful and can actually be a PR issue- witness all of the “You have a supermajority and you can’t get anything done” talk. The more that the breakdown reflects ideological reality, the better off we are.
And secondly, it (ever so slightly) increases the chances that we will either enact some reform in the cloture rules (like a reduction in the number of votes needed for cloture as time passes) or actually force a real-life fillibuster as a healthy percentage of the times it is threatened. For my money, the more often we actually use the filibuster for debate and attention, rather than punting to avoid making a decision, the better off we all are.
Nope. This was a state wide election in Massachussets. One out of 50 states in the union. Brown was elected by many different voters in that particular state for a wide variety of reasons. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that health care was the primary motivating factor behind Brown’s victory.
Anyone attempting to extrapolate this as national referendum on the issue of health care is simply deluding themselves. Unfortunately, the list of deluded here may include some Democrats in Congress.
Ann Richards was president? I missed that.
Ha !
I suspected all along that Bill & Carville must have stolen this phrase from some smart woman.
My favorite Ann Richards quote:
*“Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels.”
*
I stand second to no one in my admiration for Annie. But the line, I’m pretty sure, is not original with her. Love to be wrong, probably not.
An excellent point that Stewart makes: Mass. residents already have health care reform that is more progressive than anything being proposed in Congress. They won’t suffer in the least from this bill dying.
This makes any argument about it being a referendum on health reform even more ridiculous.
You know, I live in Massachusetts. Personally, I blame Tom Brady for this. If the Patriots were still in it, all those mancrushes wouldn’t have needed redirection.
I’m only half kidding, by the way. As far as I can tell (in a purely anecdotal, viewing the behavior of my personal acquaintances kind of way), a not insignificant percentage of Scott Brown “fans” didn’t even vote in 2008, and have no interest in politics as a rule. Having polled a bunch, I can tell you that they have no idea how he ever voted on anything while he was a state senator. In four years, they’ll have no idea how he voted on anything as a US Senator. Frankly, if there’d been a decent game on last night, they’d have stayed home.
Bradley effect. People don’t want to be branded as racist for being against Obama so they’ll rather say that they don’t like his policies even as they are still very supportive.
That doesn’t make sense. They don’t want to seem racist so they say they don’t like his policies but they still support him? Why not just say they are against him because of his policies?
News flash, there are a lot of people who are comfortable with disagreeing vocally with this president, or any president, and don’t seem to be askairt of being called a racist. Maybe people are being honest about their feelings about the Prez and weren’t really thinking about rebuking him or his national agenda when they voted Brown into office, but rather giving the finger to the state Democratic machine and their listless candidate.
The biggest National message is that Democrats still suck at politics.
Well, the odd thing is that, in THIS case, it was the DEMOCRATS who were trying to turn this into a referendum on all sorts of things outside Massachusetts.
Coakley’s ads weren’t saying, “Brown doesn’t care enough about the needs of working people in Boston,” she was saying, “A vote for Brown is a vote for Sarah Palin.”
That didn’t work. For future reference, Democrats might want to remember that. Until such time as Sarah Palin is actually running for some office, you might want to forget about her, and stop trying to make her an issue.
Maybe. But seeing as how effectively charges of racism has been used to dismiss entire segments of the population, I can imagine why people will hold on to expressing that they personally like Obama while expressing strong opposition to what he does. Sort of like the straw-splitting distinction Catholics used on sinners and their sins.
I guess it depends. In most of these polls that I am familiar with the question is not “do you like him personally”. The question is “do you approve of the way that he is doing his job”. It neatly sidesteps any connotations of racism by focusing on job performance.
I am skeptical of a Bradley effect as regards Obama, since there didn’t seem to be much of one in the 2008 election. And let’s be honest- vocal disapproval of this president and his policies is not thin on the ground - there ought to be comfort in at least modest numbers for people who have a genuine policy disagreement with the president.