The Dems can’t explain this defeat (if it happpens). There’s simply no way to explain the loss of the liberal lion’s seat in the most liberal state in the Union. None.
Other than public disgust at the stimulus, the force
feeding of the health care package, cap and tax and
climate/change there is no excuse, unless after 54?
years the people just got tired of being taken for
granted.
Well, haven’t they been telling us that change is good?
The press will repeat Gibb's message, Obama is not running in Mass.
They will repeat this message until you begin to wonder about your sanity.
Obama lie? You can bet on it, it got him elected Pres_ent and he will not abandon his favorite tool.
The Dems can’t explain this defeat (if it happpens). There’s simply no way to explain the loss of the liberal lion’s seat in the most liberal state in the Union. None.
"I told Kennedy that he should have suppored Hillary and not Obama.
Obama should be getting coffee for us..."
I seesawing back and forth over this. It would be a crushing defeat if Brown were to lose, and a triumph for the bastard. I'm afraid this might send me into a tailspin.
But, elections are decided as much by those who don't vote, as by those who do. This thing Coakley don't look like much--I mean she don't impress me, so it's hard to imagine her impressing anybody else. Even thugs need motivating, something work for:I don't see them finding it.
I wonder if the people of Tassachusetts are as sick of the G*D* Kennedys as I am?
You mean, without their denial bubble collapsing.
How about this explanation. Martha Coakley ran a horrendous campaign with many outrageous gaffes in the last days, and she came off caustic, bitchy, and mean. Even staunch liberals began to dislike her. Scott Brown on the other hand ran a brilliant campaign with no gaffes, and portrayed an image of a handsome “knight in shining armour” that caused many to overlook his conservatism and vote for the Knight who will save the day. That is why Brown won, it had nothing at all to do with national politics, and was certainly not a referendum against democrats in general or President Obama’s performance and his legislative agenda.
It's not hard to explain. True, there are more Democrats in than Republicans in Massachusetts. The more important fact is that there are more unenrolled voters in Massachusetts than the combined total of Democrats and Republicans. Brown is tapping into this crowd. It's a crowd that doesn't like what's happening now in D.C. They also don't like the way Bush and the republicans ran things. Brown has run a campaign mostly devoid of help from the national Republican Party. Brown had no appearances from Bush or Palin. He has had some lukewarm endorsements from McCain and Romney. Given Brown's apparently wise campaign strategy to avoid high profile Republicans and Coakley seen as a nasty hack, he's ahead. See the political demographics in the link below