Weird, how could Coakley lose in Massachusetts but Abbott win in Texas - if both happen?
Are you referring to this?
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
I watched Baker and Coakley debating for about three minutes before I had to change the channel in disgust.
Campaigning is largely suspended until after Tom Menino’s funeral, but Baker is starting to get blowback about inventing a story so he could cry about it in the last debate.
Ok, I get the controversy over the falsehood. Can you explain to me how, even if Baker’s story was TRUE, how it was a cryable (<–if that’s a word) event? The father couldn’t let his two boys go play football on a scholarship because they had to help him fish. Was it because he couldn’t afford to send them to college or because he couldn’t afford to lose them for his fishing business?
I watched the debate on cspan and I wanted to yell at him, “stop freaking crying and explain!”
IIRC Baker’s point was that Gummint has destroyed the fishing industry, and the father had stuck his sons in lives with no future instead of letting them go to school and Be Somebody.
The question was “When was the last time you cried?” (and note that a female candidate can’t do that in public). If for Baker it was 2009, that says something.
To illustrate what genuine compassion consists of in a career public servant, this letter to the editor explains it well:
So people in MA are actually accepting Baker’s story?
Unknown, too soon.
The Boston Globe endorsed Baker:
This is looking like +1 for the GOP. They’ll probably take Connecticut too.
Coakley could pull it off. The election’s just hours away and I know that the Repubs are poised to win big in most of the country but in MA and New England generally, Dems or VERY moderate Republicans (Bill Cohen in Maine, Silvio Conte in MA, and, some years ago, Stafford in VT, Chafee in RI, Weicker in CT) tend to be the winners. The last state to be a conservative GOP stronghold in these parts was the New Hampshire of the Loeb-Manchester Union-Leader era, and that’s over. In other words, if the Dem party faithful come out, Coakley’s got it. That the weather is going to be good should give Coakley a boost, esp with seniors. city dwellers.
Yeah, but why would they come out. Just because she’s a Democrat? The Boston Globe I think explained the reasoning behind supporting Baker pretty well: ideology aside, he’s just the more competent person and he’ll be checked by a Democratic legislature.
I suspect you’re right. We shall soon see.
Said it before in this thread and will say it again. She’s the only candidate I’ve ever stumped for who couldn’t seem to rouse even “rank-and-file” Democrats to go out and vote for her. Maybe something’s changed. But I ain’t betting the ranch on it.
You may be right. Considered purely as a politician, Martha Coakley is and always has been her own worst enemy.
Massachusetts Democrats really need to stop nominating Martha Coakley for things.
As of midnight, Baker holds a slight lead: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/11/04/polls-close-tally-begins-close-race-for-governor/nDJoEd0U674aHPPWF1BIoJ/story.html
Baker’s in, Coakley’s toast. This is the end of Coakley’s political career. To be fair, Baker was the better candidate, wanted very much to be governor, while Coakley just didn’t have it, was neither articulate nor passionate.
Overall, a bad day for the Dems nationally, needless to say. They lack leadership as a party, talk too much about social issues, alienate moderates, have made liberal a dirty word. I don’t think the country’s lurching to the right so much as it’s rejecting the left as it’s perceived today. The Dems need a major makeover.
CBS News calls it for Baker: 2014 Midterm Elections: Charlie Baker bests Martha Coakley in Massachusetts governor's race - CBS News
So, getting something right… heady stuff, eh? Feel like you thought it would?
See, now you had to go and get cocky.