Massachusetts going from Blue to Brown?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Since 1916, Mass. has had 15 Republican Governors and 11 Democrat Governors.

From 1991-2007, Massachusetts had a Republican Governor.

These people may be left of center, but they have no problem electing Republicans. Stop over-analyzing. Coakley was a garbage candidate and she ran a shitty campaign.
 
Last edited:
Since 1916, Mass. has had 15 Republican Governors and 11 Democrat Governors.

From 1991-2007, Massachusetts had a Republican Governor.

These people may be left of center, but they have no problem electing Republicans. Stop over-analyzing. Coakley was a garbage candidate and she ran a shitty campaign.

Just a year ago, Obama won Mass. by 26 points
Only 23% of Mass. people consider themselves Republican

This was a HUGE upset.

Plus it was Kennedy's seat for more than 3 decades
 
It really doesn't matter, I have lost all faith in the politicial process, both parties, and all politicians in general. I hated Bush and everything he stood for, only to vote in a guy who doesn't seem to have the gnards to get anything done. Everybody just has their own agenda, nobody cares for physcal responsibility, and nobody can ever change the system because big companies have too much money and influence. I have given up.

Put me in that category too.

I don't know if Obama doesn't have the gnards to get anything done, I just don't think politicians do anything without an some kind of agenda . . . and that agenda does not consider what is in the best interest of the general American public.

The whole thing sucks . . . and people taking pleasure in it blow me away.
 
Hmm...Since this election was all about the people being fed up with the Democrats and Obama, I guess if Ted Kennedy was still alive and went up for re-election, he would have lost, too.

Yeah, right.
 
what are you talking about? Massachusetts has elected plenty of Republicans to statewide office.

Not to the Senate. Massachusetts elects Republican Governors because they elect mostly Democrats to the State Legislature. Those Republicans act as a check on the crazy spending the Legislature wants to undertake.

The US Senate is a different matter. They elect Senators like they elect their Legislators. There hadn't been a Republican elected to the Senate since 1972. And the seat Sen. Brown won hadn't been held by a Republican since 1946. In other words, it takes something extraordinary for a Republican to win a Senate election in the Commonwealth.
 
Not to the Senate. Massachusetts elects Republican Governors because they elect mostly Democrats to the State Legislature. Those Republicans act as a check on the crazy spending the Legislature wants to undertake.

The US Senate is a different matter. They elect Senators like they elect their Legislators. There hadn't been a Republican elected to the Senate since 1972. And the seat Sen. Brown won hadn't been held by a Republican since 1946. In other words, it takes something extraordinary for a Republican to win a Senate election in the Commonwealth.

Yep, they have been voting for the same guy for most of that time, and if that guy was on the ballot, he would have won again,
 
Not to the Senate. Massachusetts elects Republican Governors because they elect mostly Democrats to the State Legislature. Those Republicans act as a check on the crazy spending the Legislature wants to undertake.

The US Senate is a different matter. They elect Senators like they elect their Legislators. There hadn't been a Republican elected to the Senate since 1972. And the seat Sen. Brown won hadn't been held by a Republican since 1946. In other words, it takes something extraordinary for a Republican to win a Senate election in the Commonwealth.

Thrilla is pointing out Coakley EXTRAORDINARILY sucked as a canidate.
 
Hmm...Since this election was all about the people being fed up with the Democrats and Obama, I guess if Ted Kennedy was still alive and went up for re-election, he would have lost, too.

Yeah, right.

Ted Kennedy is a special case and you should know that. It took a special set of circumstances for a Republican to win a Senate seat from the Commonwealth, one of which was that the Republican and Democrat started off on relatively equal footing. At that point, policy came to the forefront, rather than history.
 
Ted Kennedy is a special case and you should know that. It took a special set of circumstances for a Republican to win a Senate seat from the Commonwealth, one of which was that the Republican and Democrat started off on relatively equal footing. At that point, policy came to the forefront, rather than history.

I think policy was only a small part of it. As I pointed out already, when it was equal footing, and both candidates were mostly unknown, people supported the "D" blindly, some polls up to 30%. Once the campaign started rolling, people learned about the candidates, as individuals, and that is when things changed.
 
I think policy was only a small part of it. As I pointed out already, when it was equal footing, and both candidates were mostly unknown, people supported the "D" blindly, some polls up to 30%. Once the campaign started rolling, people learned about the candidates, as individuals, and that is when things changed.

Wow, you're really grasping at straws on this, for no apparent reason. The Dems themselves are admitting it was a policy issue and are urging Obama and his cabinet to change their focus.

On the day after the improbable Senate election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, Obama and his Democratic Party raced to re-evaluate their midterm election strategy, adjust their health care approach and assuage an angry electorate.

Obama himself owned up to a failure to communicate.

In a year of hopping from crisis to crisis, he told ABC News, "we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values."

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., put it more simply, assessing the message Massachusetts sent. "Economy, economy, economy," she said.

At the Capitol, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., declared, "If there's anybody in this building that doesn't tell you they are more worried about elections today, you should absolutely slap them."

Indeed, there was a grim sense among Democrats that if the GOP could win in a traditionally deeply liberal state, Massachusetts, it could probably win anywhere.

Said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.: "Every state is now in play."

"The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years," Obama told ABC in an interview.

In light of Brown's victory, Obama said it's time to come together around a bill that can draw Republican support, too.

"The people of Massachusetts spoke," Obama said in the interview.


I think I'll go with these quotes instead of what Thrilla44 pulls out of his ass. :biglaugh:
 
blazerboy30 said:
I think I'll go with these quotes instead of what Thrilla44 pulls out of his ass. :biglaugh:

I can understand why Obama and other would feel that way, but everything I have said is true. Coakley did have a blind lead, explain how she lost it in such a short period. Nothing changed in Washington in that time period.
 
Where does it mention in any of your above quotes about policy issue?
 
Except you forget one thing, Denny. It was never a super-majority and you know that. You're smarter than that. For one thing, you had Big Ego Joe who loves to play "I'm a Dem" but votes conservative. You had lots of blue dog Democrats who voted conservative. You even had one switch parties. These were people who knew Obama was going to sweep into power, that Bush was despised..yes, despised, and decided to ride a political wave in to power. No big surprise there.

So everyone then thinks "Well, hey, this is automatic. Dems can do anything they want." That's like saying "Hey, the colors rule the spectrum. They can do red all day long." until blue and green and yellow have a say. The GOP is a very small tent, at best a wig-wam, where only a couple of people are allowed inside. The Dems are a huge tent where you walk in and start bare knuckle fighting.

Republicans got things passed with less than 60 republicans in the senate. Heck, they even got Ted to sponsor no child left behind. The republicans had obstructionist democrats and a gang of 14 moderates to deal with. Somehow they passed a massive medicare drug bill.

The Dems simply misplayed their hand by trying to exclude republicans (except for Snowe).

It's absurd to think the Dems couldn't do anything they wanted.
 
Again, out of my ignorance:

How was this "horrible", "weak" candidate the best one the Democrats of Massachusetts could come up with? I mean, they had to be grooming someone for Teddy's spot, right? The man was in his late 70's...no one was thinking he'd be Jesse Helms.

Even with the backlash of some of the party when Palin was announced as the VP candidate, she had a constituency of backers (whether or not you agree with them, you have to admit that she had the religious right and some war hawks). Who was backing this "horrible", "weak" candidate? What was her platform or constituency? The "I'll follow Reid's lead on things" line?
 
Last edited:
I can understand why Obama and other would feel that way, but everything I have said is true. Coakley did have a blind lead, explain how she lost it in such a short period. Nothing changed in Washington in that time period.

How did she lose her lead? Democrats passed different versions of the health care bill in each house and she tanked right after that.
 
How did she lose her lead? Democrats passed different versions of the health care bill in each house and she tanked right after that.

haha, you lack of simple logic always entertains me. You are definitely an over-thinker. Look, I'm not trying to say everything is great in the Democratic party, but you have to acknowledge that individual candidates play a bigger role in elections than their party affiliations.
 
Again, out of my ignorance:

How was this "horrible", "weak" candidate the best one the Democrats of Massachusetts could come up with? I mean, they had to be grooming someone for Teddy's spot, right? The man was in his late 70's...no one was thinking he'd be Jesse Helms.

Even with the backlash of some of the party when Palin was announced as the VP candidate, she had a constituency of backers (whether or not you agree with them, you have to admit that she had the religious right and some war hawks). Who was backing this "horrible", "weak" candidate? What was her platform or constituency? The "I'll follow Reid's lead on things" line?

She could have won if she took it seriously. She thought she could coast into office.
 
haha, you lack of simple logic always entertains me. You are definitely an over-thinker. Look, I'm not trying to say everything is great in the Democratic party, but you have to acknowledge that individual candidates play a bigger role in elections than their party affiliations.

She was good enough to maintain a 20+ point lead for weeks. It wasn't until the past couple weeks that the race tightened.

Two weeks ago, Rassmussen said Coakley led in the polls by 9:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...2010_massachusetts_senate_coakley_50_brown_41

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Coakley ahead of Brown 50% to 41%. One percent (1%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided.

Boston.com said it was Coakley up 15 points:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/10/senate_poll_coakley_up_15_points/

January 10, 2010

Democrat Martha Coakley, buoyed by her durable statewide popularity, enjoys a solid, 15-percentage-point lead over Republican rival Scott Brown as the race for US Senate enters the homestretch, according to a new Boston Globe poll of likely voters.
 
She was good enough to maintain a 20+ point lead for weeks. It wasn't until the past couple weeks that the race tightened.

Two weeks ago, Rassmussen said Coakley led in the polls by 9:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...2010_massachusetts_senate_coakley_50_brown_41

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Coakley ahead of Brown 50% to 41%. One percent (1%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided.

Boston.com said it was Coakley up 15 points:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/10/senate_poll_coakley_up_15_points/

January 10, 2010

Democrat Martha Coakley, buoyed by her durable statewide popularity, enjoys a solid, 15-percentage-point lead over Republican rival Scott Brown as the race for US Senate enters the homestretch, according to a new Boston Globe poll of likely voters.

Coakley also had a series of gaffs and started her negative campaign in that time period that really turned people off.
 
haha, you lack of simple logic always entertains me. You are definitely an over-thinker. Look, I'm not trying to say everything is great in the Democratic party, but you have to acknowledge that individual candidates play a bigger role in elections than their party affiliations.

give him a break- everyone knows that crane has no dog in the race and he's just a neutral observer who voted for bob barr in the last national election :wink:
 
Coakley also had a series of gaffs and started her negative campaign in that time period that really turned people off.

He basically ran on one thing: the 41st vote, to torpedo the health care bill.

If the people wanted the bill to pass, they'd have voted for her anyway.
 
He basically ran on one thing: the 41st vote, to torpedo the health care bill.

If the people wanted the bill to pass, they'd have voted for her anyway.

Maybe in San Diego he ran on that one thing, but here in the Mass/RI TV market, the 75 commercials I had to watch everyday indicated his stance on a much wider variety of issues.
 
Maybe in San Diego he ran on that one thing, but here in the Mass/RI TV market, the 75 commercials I had to watch everyday indicated his stance on a much wider variety of issues.

None of those being positions that a blue state like Mass. would favor.
 
About half the voters in Mass. are independents. Here's an article from October interviewing RealClearPolitics.com executive editor. Things have not gotten better nationally, and certainly the results in Mass. show it.

Irate and Independent


A poll of opinion polls shows Americans' attitudes are changing rapidly.

They are less and less thrilled about the country's direction and Congress, according to Tom Bevan, executive editor of national polling aggregator RealClearPolitics. He says independent voters are shifting away from the polices of the Obama administration and Democrats.

"Independents have flipped negative," warns Bevan. "That's not a good thing for any party."

The first gubernatorial races since Democrats took control of Washington, in New Jersey and Virginia, show voter angst and ire. Those races appear to be heading in different directions but are two sides of the same coin.

In Virginia -- which swung Democrat first in 2006 to Jim Webb in his Senate race, then further to Obama in 2008 -- Republican Bob McDonnell leads Democrat Creigh Deeds by widening margins.

In New Jersey -- which last went for a GOP presidential candidate in 1988 -- Democrat Gov. Jon Corzine averages about 40 percent. GOP challenger Chris Christie has fallen more than six points in two weeks. The beneficiary is independent Chris Daggett, winning double-digit support.

"What do these phenomena have in common? In two words: disillusionment and disgust," says Lara Brown, Villanova University political science professor.

Registered and likely voters, in particular, are disillusioned and disgusted with both parties and their candidates, who seem to over-promise, under-deliver, ask for too much and take advantage of their positions, explains Brown.

Americans are worn out by inflated rhetoric and Washington insiders who just months ago said they were outsiders.

Voters wonder what happened to candidates they elected to clean up Washington, stop partisan bickering and remove Wall Street titans who retained fat bonuses only because taxpayers bailed out their companies.

Americans are simply fed up:

• A CNN poll last week suggests most no longer agree with Obama "on the issues that matter most to them."

• A Rasmussen poll shows 31 percent "think Congress has a poor understanding of the health care proposal," down four points from August (not a high point for Congress, if you recall town hall meetings). Worse, only 18 percent "think the (health care) plan will be a bipartisan effort."

• Another Rasmussen poll shows only 49 percent "think that the economy will be stronger in five years than it is today." • A new Gallup poll shows most are "very concerned" about the economy and 60 percent "think the economic conditions are getting worse."

Adding to these fears is Iran, which "9 in 10 Americans" think is developing nuclear arms, according to CNN.

And few seem to understand the president's unwillingness to make a decision about Afghanistan. It is as if they ask: "Does he ever actually sit at the Oval Office desk to work -- like the rest of us?"

Then there are tax problems for Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y.; questionable loans for Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.; and adulterous liaisons for Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Gov. Mark Sanford, R-S.C.

Further, only 39 percent of Republicans have a favorable impression of Michael Steele, GOP chairman. Other polls suggest Americans feel Republicans are merely "obstructionists."

The White House added insult to injury with its fight with Fox News. Most wonder how the White House even bothers with this "issue" with so many other important matters at hand.

"When you look at all of these things, it is no great surprise that the thousands of tea party activists haven't embraced any one political party and that Glenn Beck's anti-administration, small-government, pro-individual-freedom tirade continues to draw some of the highest ratings of all three cable news networks," observes Brown.

What does all this portend? Very possibly a Ross Perot moment -- the emergence of someone with serious charts and serious language that angry Americans will see as more authentic than "hope and change."
 
Do those quotes indicate it was a campaign or weak candidate issue?

So your quotes were completely irrelevant to the point you were trying to make. Thrilla lives in that part of the country I'll take his first hand account of the situation.
 
give him a break- everyone knows that crane has no dog in the race and he's just a neutral observer who voted for bob barr in the last national election :wink:

I didn't vote for Barr. I wrote in Ron Paul.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top