MA Senator Race. Brown, Coakley

[jbertclassic]

Well Brown took the MA seat. A state as blue as it gets sends a serious shot to Obama's health care in the process.

In what I thought was a lesser of two evils, I voted Brown. Pretty big election. Tons of nat'l coverage. Couldn't find thread.

Discuss.

[xshady121]

A little late for this thread.

I think Brown will do a good job, and he is more liberal than people think. People seem to forget that MA voted repub before-- Mitt Romney.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/cm/cosmopolitan/images/Ti/Scott-Brown-new3.jpg

[Justin_stacy]

16 years worth of Republican govs, along with Mitt.

[Justin_stacy]

blah he was twenty two....hell if this trash can be a senator, so can brown with that article.

http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg195/ThePhantomMan/StuartSmalleyDiaper.jpg

[jbertclassic]

A little late for this thread.

I think Brown will do a good job, and he is more liberal than people think. People seem to forget that MA voted repub before-- Mitt Romney.
A little late, but did I miss another thread? I think people are so surprised because this was Kennedy's seat. Haven't had a Rep senator in almost 30 years I think right? Regardless, this is all about the health care aftermath.

[xshady121]

A little late, but did I miss another thread? I think people are so surprised because this was Kennedy's seat. Haven't had a Rep senator in almost 30 years I think right? Regardless, this is all about the health care aftermath.

No it hasn't been. It should have been created earlier, that's why I think it's late.

Either way you are correct. I don't think it's as big of a deal as people are making it though.

[J.C.]

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/cm/cosmopolitan/images/Ti/Scott-Brown-new3.jpg

"Pro-American and clearly Anti-Brazilian."

[only the clouds]

Dems should have picked a better candidate. Coakley came off as pretty weak.

[Justin_stacy]

"Pro-American and clearly Anti-Brazilian."

hahaha....

[thepianominstre]

14 months ago Obama won every county in the state; his 26-point lead then has turned to a 5-point lead the other way. I actually think Democrats have the makings of a good point by complaining that it took 8 years to screw up the country and it's gonna take more than 1 to go back, except that the Dems have controlled Congress for longer and besides, the Democrat majority is still larger than the Republicans ever had during that time that they did all that screw-up-ing stuff.

I was surprised to learn that 51% of MA voters are registered Independent, and I read interviews of a lot of people who voted for Obama because they were sick of Bush/GOP and thought they were getting a centrist, whereas the Democrats thought their victory meant the whole country was on their side and started trying to ram through their agendas. I think (or hope, anyway) that most people are just sick of the vote bribes and backroom union deals and so forth, which are every bit as corrupt as the Republicans and their big business friends.

[andthetruthwill]

Yay for Brown. Don't care really at all for politics. It's all a joke, but better him than her. Coakley is a very bad person.

[xshady121]

So you mean to tell me the secret service wouldn't let me go get food in the dining hall FOR NOTHING?!?

Unbelievable.

[open mind]

14 months ago Obama won every county in the state; his 26-point lead then has turned to a 5-point lead the other way. I actually think Democrats have the makings of a good point by complaining that it took 8 years to screw up the country and it's gonna take more than 1 to go back, except that the Dems have controlled Congress for longer and besides, the Democrat majority is still larger than the Republicans ever had during that time that they did all that screw-up-ing stuff.

I was surprised to learn that 51% of MA voters are registered Independent, and I read interviews of a lot of people who voted for Obama because they were sick of Bush/GOP and thought they were getting a centrist, whereas the Democrats thought their victory meant the whole country was on their side and started trying to ram through their agendas. I think (or hope, anyway) that most people are just sick of the vote bribes and backroom union deals and so forth, which are every bit as corrupt as the Republicans and their big business friends.

democrats ramming through an agenda? surely you must be joking.

vote bribes and union deals are a staple of american politics and aren't going anywhere.

this election and it's result was rather depressing.

[Scrandon]

"Pro-American and clearly Anti-Brazilian."

Someone watched the colbert report tonight!

[Gregory Robson]

Just really thrilled that this happened. That's all I really have to say. Just so happy it happened.

[<*)))><]

Hopefully he can do something about Health Care, and he really deserved the win he actually campaigned his ass off unlike that evil women.

[saysmydoctor]

Just really thrilled that this happened. That's all I really have to say. Just so happy it happened.
Care to elaborate?

[jetblack1231]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmNpcMHwOa8

....this one pretty much lost her the election

related articles:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/yankees_emerge.html
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1226129
http://wbztv.com/local/coakley.schilling.yankees.2.1430657 .html


what a victory. for the first time in years, i'm proud of who our state chose.

[saysmydoctor]

Greenwald:

the most amazing -- and depressing -- aspect of all of this is how Americans have so quickly forgotten how throughly the Republicans, during their eight-year reign, destroyed the country. Whatever the source of our national woes are, re-empowering that faction (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/teabag-revolution-by-digby-attorney.html) cannot possibly be the answer to anything.

http://feeds.salon.com/~r/salon/greenwald/~3/rHSv-wGV83U/index.html

[thepianominstre]

democrats ramming through an agenda? surely you must be joking.

They seem determined to pass this thing at all costs. Last summer we repeatedly heard that this thing had to be passed immediately or basically we were all gonna die (reminded me too much of Bush and the Patriot Act). Forget about whether or not the public wants it, forget about whether or not it's going to cost them seats in elections, they're going to do it! A couple votes shy? OK, give extra money to those states. The unions don't like the Senate version because they have plans that'll get extra taxes? OK, the unions don't have to pay the taxes for eight years while everyone else does... If they can't pass it one way they'll smooth off some edges to try to get it through another way; I don't know how they could be any more ramming if they wanted to...

vote bribes and union deals are a staple of american politics and aren't going anywhere.

And that's a reason not to be upset about it? Unfortunately both parties are guilty and there's too much inertia and short memories...

[knowthisx]

If you listen to Tucker Carlson, this means MA hates Obama.

I guess all those tea-baggers will get their wish? :-(

[Gregory Robson]

Care to elaborate?
Not really. The Democratic party needs an ounce of humility and hopefully this upset victory will accomplish that.
If you're trying to provoke discussion, look elsewhere.

[Gregory Robson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmNpcMHwOa8

....this one pretty much lost her the election

related articles:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/yankees_emerge.html
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1226129
http://wbztv.com/local/coakley.schilling.yankees.2.1430657 .html


what a victory. for the first time in years, i'm proud of who our state chose.
Amen!

[caveBEAR]

This election reminded me of Bush v. Kerry.

[Simulcast]

Not really. The Democratic party needs an ounce of humility and hopefully this upset victory will accomplish that.
If you're trying to provoke discussion, look elsewhere.


I wouldn't get my hopes up.

[saysmydoctor]

Not really. The Democratic party needs an ounce of humility and hopefully this upset victory will accomplish that.
If you're trying to provoke discussion, look elsewhere.
I agree.

And here I was thinking I was looking in the right place, considering this is the Politics forum.

[grantton]

im pretty suprised that this discussion has been as supportive to brown as it has been. being canadian im happy for america because now the more left side of obama can be reigned in. im a devout right wing conservative but i know bush messed things up financially and a centerist obama would have been at least a good 4 year break but he has gone so far too the left something had to happen. the dems have to make huge attitude and several policy changes if they dont want to lose control of the house and senate in november. Losing control may be something of a longshot, but so was a republican taking teddys seat.

[apoemtothedead]

So this guy loses in two years when there is a Presidential Election and he is back on the ballot. It sucks for Health Care Reform but yawn otherwise.

[J.C.]

1. The Democrats never learn lessons from this kind of stuff.

2. I have a hard time caring about 60 votes right now given how tepid and eager to compromise the Dems were when they actually had the ability to pass anything and everything they wanted.

[troubledbyinsects]

all i can say is thank God this fucking election is over so i can stop getting recorded calls every 30 minutes from various celebrities

[apoemtothedead]

1. The Democrats never learn lessons from this kind of stuff.

2. I have a hard time caring about 60 votes right now given how tepid and eager to compromise the Dems were when they actually had the ability to pass anything and everything they wanted.
They never had 60 votes. 60 Democrats? Yes. 60 votes? No.

[punkrocks22]

They never had 60 votes. 60 Democrats? Yes. 60 votes? No.

Actually, yes they did. They had 57 democrats and 3 independents. Now they only have 56 democrats and 3 independents.

[vaguestcargo]

This whole thing is a joke. Everything that is happened since Obama was elected proves that politics will always be politics, and politicians will always ben politicians. They don't care about anything but getting reelected, which is ironic because once they ARE, all they do is posture as necessary to get reelected again. There will never be change. There will never be growth. The Dems proved that by talking about all the change they'd do with the majority and then did nothing with it while they had the power. Obama hasn't shown he's willing to do anything progressive or game changing, as HE is only focusing on reelection, and to add to the madness, Cindy Fucking McCain just joined the No H8 campaign. Just a crazy clusterfuck, dem politics.

[apoemtothedead]

Actually, yes they did. They had 57 democrats and 3 independents. Now they only have 56 democrats and 3 independents.
...which I acknowledged. But it took weeks, months, and a watered down bill to get all 60 of those votes. Democrats from red states weren't exactly bending over backwards for Obama and his policies.

[apoemtothedead]

This whole thing is a joke. Everything that is happened since Obama was elected proves that politics will always be politics, and politicians will always ben politicians. They don't care about anything but getting reelected, which is ironic because once they ARE, all they do is posture as necessary to get reelected again. There will never be change. There will never be growth. The Dems proved that by talking about all the change they'd do with the majority and then did nothing with it while they had the power. Obama hasn't shown he's willing to do anything progressive or game changing, as HE is only focusing on reelection, and to add to the madness, Cindy Fucking McCain just joined the No H8 campaign. Just a crazy clusterfuck, dem politics.

Maybe you thought Obama was going to be a king?

[J.C.]

They never had 60 votes. 60 Democrats? Yes. 60 votes? No.

We're talking about the procedural votes to block a Republican filibuster of the healthcare bill. They twice got the 60 votes necessary to do so.

When it came to potentially passing anything and everything they wanted, you're right, they wouldn't have been able to pass it all filibuster-proof. They made concessions to get a few moderates on board, but even with the ability they had to pass healthcare reform, they've still failed to up to this point, which makes it hard for me to care about their capacity to block a filibuster.

[Gregory Robson]

I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Yeah I said hopefully. I never said it was likely. Le sigh.

[Machu505]

If only Scott Brown wasn't so likable.

[Jason Tate]

Maybe you thought Obama was going to be a king?
:appl:

[Jason Tate]

They never had 60 votes. 60 Democrats? Yes. 60 votes? No.
It's interesting how many people forget this sort of thing. They assume it's just a foregone conclusion that the majority can pass anything they want at anytime.

[x togepi x]

This is proof that the democrats need to move to the left and stop going for the mythic center.

[Machu505]

Oh, and this doesn't reflect necessarily on Obama. He maintains a 55% approval rating (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/exit-poll-only-38-said-opposition-to-obama-policies-drove-massachusetts-vote/) in Massachusetts.

[Jason Tate]

Oh, and this doesn't reflect necessarily on Obama. He maintains a 55% approval rating (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/exit-poll-only-38-said-opposition-to-obama-policies-drove-massachusetts-vote/) in Massachusetts.
I have a problem with political pundits trying to tie all of our political branches together. They were designed separate for a reason - can we focus on them as different entities with explicit tasks?

[saysmydoctor]

And 57% favorability.

[saysmydoctor]

I have a problem with political pundits trying to tie all of our political branches together. They were designed separate for a reason - can we focus on them as different entities with explicit tasks?
Well they are tied together in their own way. They explicit tasks that deal with the other. And not to mention, the political parties have also tied them together. I rarely defend a pundit, but this can't be their fault entirely. I do see your point, though.

[Machu505]

Togepi is right too. This just means the Democratic Party needs to push a left-wing agenda.

[Jason Tate]

Well they are tied together in their own way. They explicit tasks that deal with the other. And not to mention, the political parties have also tied them together. I rarely defend a pundit, but this can't be their fault entirely. I do see your point, though.
My point - said in a different way - is that the approval of one does not imply the approval of another. And I find it silly to be blaming one for the failure of the other.

And yes, the parties have - and I find that's a mistake.

[saysmydoctor]

My point - said in a different way - is that the approval of one does not imply the approval of another. And I find it silly to be blaming one for the failure of the other.

And yes, the parties have - and I find that's a mistake.
I won't argue that.

[Machu505]

Shut the fuck up, Glenn. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/glenn-beck-slams-scott-br_n_429939.html)

[saysmydoctor]

Shut the fuck up, Glenn. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/glenn-beck-slams-scott-br_n_429939.html)
Dead interns, dude! DEAD ONES. All because he posed nude.

This is why I live the life of a nevernude. (http://foodcourtlunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/nevernude.jpg) Don't want to risk killing any interns I may encounter in my life.

[macabre]

Here's an interesting perspective from the voting behavior literature on the effect of presidential approval on congressional elections.

The impact of the interaction between presidential approval and actual support is of greater magnitude than any other variable except shared partisanship. This should dispel the notion that congressional elections are generally an indiscriminate repudiation or reward of the in-party’s candidates. One must look to perceived and actual levels of presidential support to truly understand the dynamics of congressional vote choice.
Follow the Leader? Presidential Approval Presidential Support and Representatives' Electoral Fortunes (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.26.8974&rep=rep1&type=pdf) (Gronke et al)

[Jason Tate]

Here's an interesting perspective from the voting behavior literature on the effect of presidential approval on congressional elections.


Follow the Leader? Presidential Approval Presidential Support and Representatives' Electoral Fortunes (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.26.8974&rep=rep1&type=pdf) (Gronke et al)
Definitely interesting.

[Simulcast]

Togepi is right too. This just means the Democratic Party needs to push a left-wing agenda.

I don't think this will happen, and if it did it would not be good for the Democrats. People in between the 40 yard lines will be very wary of a far left agenda being pushed.

[xshady121]

Actually, yes they did. They had 57 democrats and 3 independents. Now they only have 56 democrats and 3 independents.

2 independents.

[saysmydoctor]

I think people are putting too much in stock with the supermajority in the bigger perspective. The American people never elected 60 senators. Hell, because fiddling by Democrats in Massachusetts, they toyed with law so they could get what they wanted, not what the people wanted. They fixed that last night. Also, Specter was elected as a Republican. He generally voted alongside them.

This supermajority never existed on any sort of mandate whatsoever. Progressives are kind of arrogant to believe so. They lost their grip on the discourse. They lost control.

[x togepi x]

I don't think this will happen, and if it did it would not be good for the Democrats. People in between the 40 yard lines will be very wary of a far left agenda being pushed.

They won't do it.

and people weren't wary of a far right agenda being pushed by basically every president post-carter so i don't see why a leftist one, especially when it involves things that people care about like healthcare reform, is oh so bad. people get caught up in "left" when you phrase it like that but when you talk about the issues individually, they don't have that problem.

[rawesome]

They won't do it.

and people weren't wary of a far right agenda being pushed by basically every president post-carter so i don't see why a leftist one, especially when it involves things that people care about like healthcare reform, is oh so bad. people get caught up in "left" when you phrase it like that but when you talk about the issues individually, they don't have that problem.
Quoted for truth.

[saysmydoctor]

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/eyeon2010/2010/01/flashback-some-saw-gop-chance.html

The writing really was kind of on the walls.

[apoemtothedead]

Well they are tied together in their own way. They explicit tasks that deal with the other. And not to mention, the political parties have also tied them together. I rarely defend a pundit, but this can't be their fault entirely. I do see your point, though.
I have no numbers to support this but I would guess that tying together approval ratings from different branches of government would only come into affect when both branches are on the ballot at the same time. Say this election was in 2012 instead of yesterday, Coakley very likely would have riden Obama's coattails to victory. It also would have been more likely due to a larger turnout. But since Obama wasn't on the ballot yesterday, his approval didn't play a part in the special election.

Again, no numbers, just an educated guess.

[Simulcast]

They won't do it.

and people weren't wary of a far right agenda being pushed by basically every president post-carter so i don't see why a leftist one, especially when it involves things that people care about like healthcare reform, is oh so bad. people get caught up in "left" when you phrase it like that but when you talk about the issues individually, they don't have that problem.

I believe the majority of the country is center-right.

[rawesome]

I believe the majority of the country is center-right.
In philosophy only. As the other poster said, when it comes to individual issues more people are probably center-left, which is why Obama did so well in the past election. People often think they're "right" because they believe in Capitalism and see the left as opponents of a Capitalistic society, but when broken down to their individual needs, without knowing anything else about the candidates, most people have tended to lean left. At least in my experience of talking to people.

[xshady121]

In philosophy only. As the other poster said, when it comes to individual issues more people are probably center-left, which is why Obama did so well in the past election. People often think they're "right" because they believe in Capitalism and see the left as opponents of a Capitalistic society, but when broken down to their individual needs, without knowing anything else about the candidates, most people have tended to lean left. At least in my experience of talking to people.

I don't agree with this statement at all..

America is center right.

[apoemtothedead]

I don't agree with this statement at all..

America is center right.
It depends. I think it's fair to say that America is center-left on local issues, which can be illustrated by the long history of Democratic majorities in the House. However, when national security comes into play, the people trend center-right, as shown by Presidential terms since Roosevelt.

[xshady121]

It depends. I think it's fair to say that America is center-left on local issues, which can be illustrated by the long history of Democratic majorities in the House. However, when national security comes into play, the people trend center-right, as shown by Presidential terms since Roosevelt.

American's historically oppose strict gun laws, gay marriage, and lax abortion laws (at the very least, federal funding going to abortions).

I'm not sure what you mean by local issues, but to say just national security is center right is off. America supports the conservative idea of national security, but that isn't the only issue they are center right on.

[rawesome]

American's historically oppose strict gun laws, gay marriage, and lax abortion laws (at the very least, federal funding going to abortions).

I'm not sure what you mean by local issues, but to say just national security is center right is off. America supports the conservative idea of national security, but that isn't the only issue they are center right on.
I think it's social issues that most Americans are right on, so I agree with you here. It is economically that most people seem to lean left on. Specifically related to unions and worker rights, etc. And even in that case, as I poorly was saying before, that's not even when it comes to the masses. I think a lot of people oppose unions because they have a negative connotation sometimes, but a lot of people support a 40-hour work week (which came from unions) because it appeals to them individually. I think when people break down issues not as partisan or group issues, center-left appeals to more people, specifically the middle to lower classes.

[apoemtothedead]

American's historically oppose strict gun laws, gay marriage, and lax abortion laws (at the very least, federal funding going to abortions).

I'm not sure what you mean by local issues, but to say just national security is center right is off. America supports the conservative idea of national security, but that isn't the only issue they are center right on.
I didn't say that just national security is center right...

[open mind]

They seem determined to pass this thing at all costs. Last summer we repeatedly heard that this thing had to be passed immediately or basically we were all gonna die (reminded me too much of Bush and the Patriot Act). Forget about whether or not the public wants it, forget about whether or not it's going to cost them seats in elections, they're going to do it! A couple votes shy? OK, give extra money to those states. The unions don't like the Senate version because they have plans that'll get extra taxes? OK, the unions don't have to pay the taxes for eight years while everyone else does... If they can't pass it one way they'll smooth off some edges to try to get it through another way; I don't know how they could be any more ramming if they wanted to...



And that's a reason not to be upset about it? Unfortunately both parties are guilty and there's too much inertia and short memories...

they could have (and should have) said fuck everyone, we're going through reconciliation to get the bill we really want....that would have been ramming it through.

gravity kills people but it doesn't upset me much and i don't seek to abolish it.

[GeeBee]

The health bill is lousy and deserves to fail. And I'm a flaming liberal. However, I'm hoping that they can at least pass some kind of legislation abolishing "pre-existing" denials and establishing a paperless system. Somehow those things need to happen, and I think it can be done with some bi-partisan support.

[rawesome]

The health bill is lousy and deserves to fail. And I'm a flaming liberal. However, I'm hoping that they can at least pass some kind of legislation abolishing "pre-existing" denials and establishing a paperless system. Somehow those things need to happen, and I think it can be done with some bi-partisan support.
I agree 100%

I'd rather they just forget this bill and, as you said, create a new one that just covers the issues with denial in insurance companies. Then spend the next few years making the Democrats look credible again, hopefully win more seats in 2012, and push for actual reform.

[GeeBee]

I agree 100%

I'd rather they just forget this bill and, as you said, create a new one that just covers the issues with denial in insurance companies. Then spend the next few years making the Democrats look credible again, hopefully win more seats in 2012, and push for actual reform.

True this.

Plus, I'm so sick of the idea that "reform" has to happen in ONE bill, in ONE fell swoop. Nothing substantive happens that way.

[GuitarR0cker1]

American's historically oppose strict gun laws, gay marriage, and lax abortion laws (at the very least, federal funding going to abortions).

I'm not sure what you mean by local issues, but to say just national security is center right is off. America supports the conservative idea of national security, but that isn't the only issue they are center right on.
Yep American is a very, very socially conservative nation. I just don't see how anybody could disagree with that.

[zion the lion]

I hope to god they at least do something to get rid of insurance companies denying preexisting conditions, and I hope they do it by august (before my insurance goes).

They could have done it when they had a fucking super majority, but no, it's all about politics. Bullshit.

[saysmydoctor]

Yep American is a very, very socially conservative nation. I just don't see how anybody could disagree with that.
Because on countless positions, polls have shown time and time again of Americans not be so conservative.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

The health bill is lousy and deserves to fail. And I'm a flaming liberal. However, I'm hoping that they can at least pass some kind of legislation abolishing "pre-existing" denials and establishing a paperless system. Somehow those things need to happen, and I think it can be done with some bi-partisan support.

This. That's been my beef with current insurance practices. Conservatives praise the current status of health insurance and see no need to change it, but it's definitely a flawed practice.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Because on countless positions, polls have shown time and time again of Americans not be so conservative.
It depends on which issue you're talking about. I'd say our populace is very conservative socially compared to Europe for the most part but obviously when you compare America to Latin America we look much more liberal.

For example in the UK this is what a poll on Abortion looks like, asking "should women have the right to access abortion?"
-37% Strongly Agree
-20% Tend To Agree
-12% Neither Agree nor Disagree
-7% Tend To Agree
-12% Strongly Agree
-12% Don't Know/Did Not Answer

Here's a Gallup Poll with more conservative wording:
-22% Legal Under All Circumstances
-15% Legal Under Most Circumstances
-37% Legal In Only A Few Circumstances
-23% Illegal In All Circumstances

Things have changed quickly on Gay Marriage and Marijuana, which is great and America is shedding lots of its social conservatism but still for the most part we remain more conservative than most of the developing world.

[saysmydoctor]

Don't think anybody was denying that, just think people--at least myself--is starting to move in a positive as progressive forces are getting stronger, concerning social issues.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Oh yeah I agree, we're moving in a much more liberal direction with social issues besides abortion. Even with abortion I see lots of my peers that are normally very conservative and hate Obama but who are non-religious defend women having the right to abortion. It's odd stuff.

The movement on marijuana is what is getting me excited. It's really remarkable how quickly the pro-legalization side has gained support and momentum.

[Machu505]

I don't see much progress where I come from, besides on marijuana legalization.

[SunnyInPhilly]

Conservatives praise the current status of health insurance and see no need to change it

This isn't a blatant misrepresentation or anything.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

This isn't a blatant misrepresentation or anything.

Prove me wrong Philadelphia Phil... prove me wrong!!!

[xshady121]

Prove me wrong Philadelphia Phil... prove me wrong!!!

You are in the affirmative, as such, the burden of proof falls on you.

[SunnyInPhilly]

Prove me wrong Philadelphia Phil... prove me wrong!!!

http://www.gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/11-06-09_10_Reasons_to_Support_the_GOP_He alth_Care_Bill.pdf

That took about 10 seconds.

[:-)]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-18-2010/mass-backwards

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

http://www.gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/11-06-09_10_Reasons_to_Support_the_GOP_He alth_Care_Bill.pdf

That took about 10 seconds.

"Guarantees Affordable Coverage for Patients with Preexisting Conditions."

Exactly what I'm talking about!

[SunnyInPhilly]

"Guarantees Affordable Coverage for Patients with Preexisting Conditions."

Exactly what I'm talking about!

You said absolutely nothing about that, but sure, that's exactly what you were talking about.

[jetblack1231]

Amen!

glad to see another conservative person from Mass on AP. some the insanely over-the-top liberal bias of most of the staffers at AP.net (Jason...::cough::) keep me away from this site, and the stupidity (and argument tactics) of some of the posts around here are simply infuriating.


in short: you're a breath of fresh air around here, man!

[Gregory Robson]

glad to see another conservative person from Mass on AP. some the insanely over-the-top liberal bias of most of the staffers at AP.net (Jason...::cough::) keep me away from this site, and the stupidity (and argument tactics) of some of the posts around here are simply infuriating.


in short: you're a breath of fresh air around here, man!
I'm actually a native and resident New Yorker. The girlfriend attends school in Boston, so it is my second home.
That being said I am a conservative and I appreciate the kind words.

[xshady121]

I'm actually a native and resident New Yorker. The girlfriend attends school in Boston, so it is my second home.
That being said I am a conservative and I appreciate the kind words.

I was excited to see a staff member join the political debate.

This forum has been a free-for-all lately, and we've been trying to get either more staff readership or a moderator enacted here now that Jason and Luedia don't visit as often as they used to.

It's always good to see new faces here though.

Especially a conservative. Thanks for joining us.

[Gregory Robson]

I was excited to see a staff member join the political debate.

This forum has been a free-for-all lately, and we've been trying to get either more staff readership or a moderator enacted here now that Jason and Luedia don't visit as often as they used to.

It's always good to see new faces here though.

Especially a conservative. Thanks for joining us.
Re: your avatar. You're an Islander fan. Huzzah!!!! Thanks for the welcome mat.

[vaguestcargo]

Maybe you thought Obama was going to be a king?

Maybe. That or I thought he wasn't going to be a huge pansy and actually bring about an ounce of the change he talked about bringing instead of pandering to the opposition so much that THEY succeed more than he does. One or the other.

[vaguestcargo]

:appl:

lol how is his comment even relevant to what I said, especially enough to deserve a slow clap? I pointed out that Obama is being a push over and compromising on more things than he's changing, and the guy said I thought he was going to be king? lol. Yes, that was brilliant, and totally relevant. Let me join the applause.

:appl: for unnecessary snakiness and irrelevance. W00t!

[Jason Tate]

lol how is his comment even relevant to what I said, especially enough to deserve a slow clap? I pointed out that Obama is being a push over and compromising on more things than he's changing, and the guy said I thought he was going to be king? lol. Yes, that was brilliant, and totally relevant. Let me join the applause.

:appl: for unnecessary snakiness and irrelevance. W00t!
Or maybe it's because you have no idea how the American political system works? Yeah. Could be that.

[xshady121]

Maybe. That or I thought he wasn't going to be a huge pansy and actually bring about an ounce of the change he talked about bringing instead of pandering to the opposition so much that THEY succeed more than he does. One or the other.

I'm curious how you think the united states political system works?

Seriously, I'd like to see you describe things like house, senate, executive branch, supreme court, constitution, legislation, bills, etc etc

[x togepi x]

I believe the majority of the country is center-right.

that's because you buy into propaganda pushed by the far right.

I'm just going to say look, if you want to talk to people about goals, they're going to fall into leftist positions.

Do you want to help poor people?
Do you want to help fix the environment?
Do you want a government that works for you?
Do you believe in civil liberties?
Do you not hate women?

The right is, as things are currently situated, inherently regressive and promote the status quo. You're hardly going to find anyone who thinks things are so amazing that we can't change anything. Unless they want to go back to the so-called good old days, then they're most likely going to start espousing a leftist position even if they don't call it "leftist."

I mean I agree, if Obama suddenly started wearing drab green military uniforms and changed the presidential seal to a sickle and hammer, he'd have problems, but if he actually started promoting socialist policies and people saw that they worked (and maybe they won't, that isn't the point here), people would support it. Proof of this is found in Medicare, which is insanely popular, yet was originally slammed as "too liberal/left wing" for America.

[crackedthesky]

People didn't elect Brown because they hate Obama.
They elected Brown because Coakley hardly campaigned at all. The only times she opened her mouth, it was to say something stupid. She didn't get on TV at all until like a week before the election.

I'm almost happy that the current "reform" bill won't go through, but that would only be if there was some hope for improvement. There isn't. The Republicans are not going to "compromise." They're sitting up on capitol hill right now celebrating the fact that now nothing can get done. They don't want to legislate, they want to road block. They want to make the Democrats look like they're failing so Americans will vote Republican again, and to make it happen, they'll sit there and shake their heads and vote no, no matter what. No Republican is going to reacha corss the aisle, because they aren't allowed to. If you want to be a Republican congressman, you have to make yourself into a carbon copy of every other Republican congressman.

But one more Republican entering the senate changes nothing. As many have said, the Democrats never had the 60 votes they needed, even before this. You have too many people like Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman who belong to insurance companies and aren't going to vote for anything that stops them from doing what they're doing.

[xshady121]

People didn't elect Brown because they hate Obama.
They elected Brown because Coakley hardly campaigned at all. The only times she opened her mouth, it was to say something stupid. She didn't get on TV at all until like a week before the election.

I'm almost happy that the current "reform" bill won't go through, but that would only be if there was some hope for improvement. There isn't. The Republicans are not going to "compromise." They're sitting up on capitol hill right now celebrating the fact that now nothing can get done. They don't want to legislate, they want to road block. They want to make the Democrats look like they're failing so Americans will vote Republican again, and to make it happen, they'll sit there and shake their heads and vote no, no matter what. No Republican is going to reacha corss the aisle, because they aren't allowed to. If you want to be a Republican congressman, you have to make yourself into a carbon copy of every other Republican congressman.

But one more Republican entering the senate changes nothing. As many have said, the Democrats never had the 60 votes they needed, even before this. You have too many people like Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman who belong to insurance companies and aren't going to vote for anything that stops them from doing what they're doing.

1) You're wrong. You're forgetting there were primaries since when Kennedy died. To say she wasn't on TV until a week before the election is a lie.

2) Yawn. The big ol bad republicans are doing something the democrats never did before. How rude.

2b) Yes. All republican congressman are carbon copies. I mean, just look at Bill Frist and Olympia Snowe. Can you tell the difference? I surely can't.

3) If the democratic senators wanted reform, we'd have had it. They have noone to blame but themselves.

[xshady121]

that's because you buy into propaganda pushed by the far right.

I'm just going to say look, if you want to talk to people about goals, they're going to fall into leftist positions.

Do you want to help poor people?
Do you want to help fix the environment?
Do you want a government that works for you?
Do you believe in civil liberties?
Do you not hate women?


Flip that on it's head.

Do you support government welfare?
Do you support cap and trade?
Do you support government interference in every day life?
Do you support abortions?

You'd get a very conservative response.

Your assertions are moot. America is center right and you know it.

[crackedthesky]

1) You're wrong. You're forgetting there were primaries since when Kennedy died. To say she wasn't on TV until a week before the election is a lie.

2) Yawn. The big ol bad republicans are doing something the democrats never did before. How rude.

2b) Yes. All republican congressman are carbon copies. I mean, just look at Bill Frist and Olympia Snowe. Can you tell the difference? I surely can't.

3) If the democratic senators wanted reform, we'd have had it. They have noone to blame but themselves.

I never said the Democrats didn't do it. However, to say that the Democrats aren't allowed to differ from each other the way Republicans aren't is just plain false. When John Cao voted for the health care bill after it had the votes to pass, the internet lit up with death threats. Perfect example of what I'm talking about is Joe Lieberman. He promises to vote for the bill under a certain set of conditions, all are met, and he promises to vote against it anyway.

And your third point is my point exactly. Notice the two people I blamed most for health care failing were Democrats. The bill didn't change anything. It covered more people simply because it forced people who don't have insurance to buy insurance.

The reason it didn't get done and took so long is because of compromise. Especially that among Democrats. If you include a public option, blue dogs vote no. If you don't, progressives vote no. And no matter what you do, Republicans vote no. Yet the senate tried to get everybody happy by cutting more and more and moer out of it until it was little more than a mandatory purchase (to which, strangely, republicans still said no) and then everybody lost.

The Democrats have proven a few things:

1. They don't have a majority, at least not one that can just blitzkrieg a bill into law.
2. Compromise only goes so far. In trying to make everyone happy, they've made no one happy.
3. The Republicans don't want to play along, so compromising a bill to get them to vote is futile.

Again, I'm almost happy the bill didn't pass. It was pretty much worthless, it was a blank check for the insurance companies. That's all thanks to Max Baucus, a Democrat.

If people want things to change, though, voting in more Republicans isn't the right answer. If people want better health care reform, they aren't going to get it by voting red. Unfortunately, even with this blue congress, they still aren't going to get it anyway.

[x togepi x]

Flip that on it's head.

Do you support government welfare?
Do you support cap and trade?
Do you support government interference in every day life?
Do you support abortions?

You'd get a very conservative response.

Your assertions are moot. America is center right and you know it.

dude i live in one of the most conservative areas possible and you're still wrong. The questions we both asked are all around loaded phrases and buzzwords. Ask my friends who work for planned parenthood, for example, if they support abortions and they'll say no. Does that make them conservative?

The problem with your line of thinking is that you assume that people are so dogmatically adhere to the "center-right" ideology when they are merely responding to good PR campaign. Ask anyone who will sincerely talk to you about the successes of the conservative movement in the 20th century instead of spewing talking points from either side and they'll tell you that the success of the movement doesn't come from the fact they changed people's mind on whatever issue but that they are extremely good at using and manipulating the media.

The fifties saw liberals shunning television while conservatives embraced it as a source of political power. The rise of the televangelists like Billy Graham/Focus on the Family/Pat Robertson as well as the conservative movement's very successful mailing list campaigns show that to gain political power, all one really needs is a good PR campaign. Shifts in the electorate to the right correspond with this media manipulation.

This is how I can easily say that the so-called middle isn't "the middle" in the left/right wing dichotomy but really the middle between the two specific parties. Aside from the far left/right, most people aren't tied to ideology and therefore, are more willing to vote for which party they think will run the government best.

If your claim was correct, Obama would have had a much harder time getting elected because of all the "he's a socialist. he's the most liberal senator. blah blah blah" talk. People simply didn't care. They thought he would do a better job than McCain, who picked someone so incompetant as Palin, to be his VP. The change they voted for wasn't for "center-right" politics. It was for competent government. So yeah, I think if Obama or the democrats could show how leftism will do a better job, that people will buy it.

even more importantly, the fact that the democratic party has shifted so far to the "center right" has pissed off so many people that their base will probably stay home later this year. You think america is center right? Look at the healthcare bill that everyone hates. That's what "center right" politics get you.

[xshady121]

dude i live in one of the most conservative areas possible and you're still wrong. The questions we both asked are all around loaded phrases and buzzwords. Ask my friends who work for planned parenthood, for example, if they support abortions and they'll say no. Does that make them conservative?

The problem with your line of thinking is that you assume that people are so dogmatically adhere to the "center-right" ideology when they are merely responding to good PR campaign. Ask anyone who will sincerely talk to you about the successes of the conservative movement in the 20th century instead of spewing talking points from either side and they'll tell you that the success of the movement doesn't come from the fact they changed people's mind on whatever issue but that they are extremely good at using and manipulating the media.

The fifties saw liberals shunning television while conservatives embraced it as a source of political power. The rise of the televangelists like Billy Graham/Focus on the Family/Pat Robertson as well as the conservative movement's very successful mailing list campaigns show that to gain political power, all one really needs is a good PR campaign. Shifts in the electorate to the right correspond with this media manipulation.

This is how I can easily say that the so-called middle isn't "the middle" in the left/right wing dichotomy but really the middle between the two specific parties. Aside from the far left/right, most people aren't tied to ideology and therefore, are more willing to vote for which party they think will run the government best.

If your claim was correct, Obama would have had a much harder time getting elected because of all the "he's a socialist. he's the most liberal senator. blah blah blah" talk. People simply didn't care. They thought he would do a better job than McCain, who picked someone so incompetant as Palin, to be his VP. The change they voted for wasn't for "center-right" politics. It was for competent government. So yeah, I think if Obama or the democrats could show how leftism will do a better job, that people will buy it.

You're coming dangerously close to advocating a political mandate, and I think we both know they are fallacies.

[vaguestcargo]

Or maybe it's because you have no idea how the American political system works? Yeah. Could be that.

I'm curious how you think the united states political system works?

Seriously, I'd like to see you describe things like house, senate, executive branch, supreme court, constitution, legislation, bills, etc etc

So wait. You're both saying that Obama is doing everything he promised, to the best of his ability (in a reasonable and timely manner)? Take this lovely health care crap for instance: Throwing out the public option and medicare buy in was... part of the system? Cuz there was no way it would go through all the houses unless he compromised so much it looks more like the republicans' bill than his? I'd love to know you PolySci majors' takes on it, since running and posting on punk forums makes you enough of an authority to act so high and mighty.

[xshady121]

So wait. You're both saying that Obama is doing everything he promised, to the best of his ability (in a reasonable and timely manner)? Take this lovely health care crap for instance: Throwing out the public option and medicare buy in was... part of the system? Cuz there was no way it would go through all the houses unless he compromised so much it looks more like the republicans' bill than his? I'd love to know you PolySci majors' takes on it, since running and posting on punk forums makes you enough of an authority to act so high and mighty.


No he hasn't.

He doesn't make legislation, so it's not his fault there is no public option.

That's my polysci take on it.

I'm not a democrat, so you trying to paint me as an Obama supporter is off base.

[apoemtothedead]

So wait. You're both saying that Obama is doing everything he promised, to the best of his ability (in a reasonable and timely manner)? Take this lovely health care crap for instance: Throwing out the public option and medicare buy in was... part of the system? Cuz there was no way it would go through all the houses unless he compromised so much it looks more like the republicans' bill than his? I'd love to know you PolySci majors' takes on it, since running and posting on punk forums makes you enough of an authority to act so high and mighty.
You want my PoliSci major take on things? You have no clue how the American political system works. That's my take on this.

[Jason Tate]

So wait. You're both saying that Obama is doing everything he promised, to the best of his ability (in a reasonable and timely manner)? Take this lovely health care crap for instance: Throwing out the public option and medicare buy in was... part of the system? Cuz there was no way it would go through all the houses unless he compromised so much it looks more like the republicans' bill than his? I'd love to know you PolySci majors' takes on it, since running and posting on punk forums makes you enough of an authority to act so high and mighty.
So wait -- you're saying Obama wrote this bill?

I never had the expectations that he would do everything he promised. What he has done is actually right on par with what I was assuming.

[saysmydoctor]

So wait. You're both saying that Obama is doing everything he promised, to the best of his ability (in a reasonable and timely manner)? Take this lovely health care crap for instance: Throwing out the public option and medicare buy in was... part of the system? Cuz there was no way it would go through all the houses unless he compromised so much it looks more like the republicans' bill than his? I'd love to know you PolySci majors' takes on it, since running and posting on punk forums makes you enough of an authority to act so high and mighty.
Someone didn't pay attention in Civics class when they talked about the three coequal branches of government, that's my polisci major take on it.

[nfgrocker16]

In all honesty I find it interesting that a lot of conservatives see this as an example of people voting against democratic policy ideas. I think its more of a vote of anger against the democrats not really being able to initiate a lot of policies they were running on. I don't think people's opinions have changed on issues like health insurance reform where they still think some sort of public option would be a good thing. They're just mad it hasn't gotten done yet.

[xshady121]

In all honesty I find it interesting that a lot of conservatives see this as an example of people voting against democratic policy ideas. I think its more of a vote of anger against the democrats not really being able to initiate a lot of policies they were running on. I don't think people's opinions have changed on issues like health insurance reform where they still think some sort of public option would be a good thing. They're just mad it hasn't gotten done yet.

Public opinion polls prove you wrong.

[SunnyInPhilly]

In all honesty I find it interesting that a lot of conservatives see this as an example of people voting against democratic policy ideas. I think its more of a vote of anger against the democrats not really being able to initiate a lot of policies they were running on. I don't think people's opinions have changed on issues like health insurance reform where they still think some sort of public option would be a good thing. They're just mad it hasn't gotten done yet.

You're saying they wanted this legislation so bad, they elected a Republican, who will make this legislation impossible to pass in its current form and delay it for quite some time. Makes perfect sense to me. I'm sure Brown will be all for putting the public option back in there like you say everyone wants.

[xshady121]

You're saying they wanted this legislation so bad, they elected a Republican, who will make this legislation impossible to pass in its current form and delay it for quite some time. Makes perfect sense to me. I'm sure Brown will be all for putting the public option back in there like you say everyone wants.

Don't listen to him. His views on politics are hardly ever accurate.

[nfgrocker16]

Don't listen to him. His views on politics are hardly ever accurate.

And your posts are always condescending. Smugness gets you nowhere in life.

[nfgrocker16]

Public opinion polls prove you wrong.

Hardly.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/a_referendum_on_obama_health_c.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/obama-backers-more-commit_n_429673.html

[nfgrocker16]

You're saying they wanted this legislation so bad, they elected a Republican, who will make this legislation impossible to pass in its current form and delay it for quite some time. Makes perfect sense to me. I'm sure Brown will be all for putting the public option back in there like you say everyone wants.

I'm not sure he'll make it impossible to pass anything. He's a new senator from a very liberal district. If he has hopes of being reelected I think he'll need to side with what his voters want.

[xshady121]

Hardly.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/a_referendum_on_obama_health_c.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/obama-backers-more-commit_n_429673.html

Oh, I'm sorry.

Did I miss the link to where you showed me that the public still supports health care reform?

Because you seem to think they do when public opinion polls say otherwise.


Edit:: Quoting Huffpo is as irresponsible as quoting drudge.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Both sides are looking at Brown's victory wrong. The common held belief that Massachusetts' voters are overwhelmingly registered Democrats is stupid. The official breakdown of registration is 37% Democratic, 13% Republican, 50% Independent as of late 2006. Independents dominate Massachusetts, not Democrats. Now of course there is also a misconception that all Indepedent voters are swing voters, which is totally false. For instance Deerfield has a 29% D, 12% R, 58% I voter breakdown yet voted for Coakley 63-36, while Southbridge has a 40% D, 10% R, 50% I voter breakdown and voted for Brown 55-42.

The main problem for Democrats in Massachusetts was the fact that turnout in traditionally working class Democratic strongholds like Lowell, Springfield, Worcester and Fall River was so low. Turnout was also terrible in Boston. Obama wasn't going to increase the turnout of these voters and his policies haven't really been popular in these areas, even though the Democrats dominate these towns. Not to mention Coakley was the worst sort of candidate for these voters.

[SunnyInPhilly]

I'm not sure he'll make it impossible to pass anything. He's a new senator from a very liberal district. If he has hopes of being reelected I think he'll need to side with what his voters want.

That liberal district elected a Republican knowing what his position was on healthcare. Anyone who didn't know obviously isn't that worried about healthcare.

[apoemtothedead]

Both sides are looking at Brown's victory wrong. The common held belief that Massachusetts' voters are overwhelmingly registered Democrats is stupid. The official breakdown of registration is 37% Democratic, 13% Republican, 50% Independent as of late 2006. Independents dominate Massachusetts, not Democrats. Now of course there is also a misconception that all Indepedent voters are swing voters, which is totally false. For instance Deerfield has a 29% D, 12% R, 58% I voter breakdown yet voted for Coakley 63-36, while Southbridge has a 40% D, 10% R, 50% I voter breakdown and voted for Brown 55-42.

The main problem for Democrats in Massachusetts was the fact that turnout in traditionally working class Democratic strongholds like Lowell, Springfield, Worcester and Fall River was so low. Turnout was also terrible in Boston. Obama wasn't going to increase the turnout of these voters and his policies haven't really been popular in these areas, even though the Democrats dominate these towns. Not to mention Coakley was the worst sort of candidate for these voters.
But he would have was he in on the ballot in a presidential election year. Which is why I don't think Brown stands a good chance in 2012.

Also, your argument about the breakdown is pretty foolish. 50% is not dominating and (if you assume everybody votes along party lines) the democrats would need just over 25% of the Independent vote to have a majority. That, coupled with the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans almost 3-1, it's pretty dominating for Democrats, if you ask me.

[GuitarR0cker1]

But he would have was he in on the ballot in a presidential election year. Which is why I don't think Brown stands a good chance in 2012.

Also, your argument about the breakdown is pretty foolish. 50% is not dominating and (if you assume everybody votes along party lines) the democrats would need just over 25% of the Independent vote to have a majority. That, coupled with the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans almost 3-1, it's pretty dominating for Democrats, if you ask me.
Obviously I agree with you there.

I was only talking about voting registration. There really aren't many other states where Independents constitute such of a large portion of the voting base. The voter registration works to the Democrats' advantage in more ordinary elections but it isn't out of the norm for Republicans to do okay in Massachusetts elections(winning over 40% of the vote) with the right candidate that can appeal to these more moderate suburban Indepdendents. There could be a Republican Representative from the state if it wasn't for extreme gerrymandering.

I'm just sick of stupid claims saying that this is the equivalent of a Democrat being elected in Utah or Idaho because it really isn't.

[nfgrocker16]

Oh, I'm sorry.

Did I miss the link to where you showed me that the public still supports health care reform?

Because you seem to think they do when public opinion polls say otherwise.


Edit:: Quoting Huffpo is as irresponsible as quoting drudge.

Read the articles. There's polling data that suggests people think democrats didn't go far enough in their proposals. I chose that pollster link because its a decent composite of a few different polls asking different types of questions and polling different types of voters/non-voters and why they voted the way they did. And some of the polls agree with you and some agree with me. So I don't think its fair to make the assertion that people no longer want reform in health care and in the health insurance industry. If anything its pretty evenly divided. Also, there's a sense that the people who don't want reform either don't understand what's being presented or have been misled to believe lies about what the ideal bill the dem's want to pass is.

I didn't use Huffington Post's sight because of their opinion. I used it because the poll numbers are on there. Those poll numbers are on other sights too. Sorry that's the sight I chose to show what any number of sights would have shown you in the same context.

[nfgrocker16]

That liberal district elected a Republican knowing what his position was on healthcare. Anyone who didn't know obviously isn't that worried about healthcare.

ehh, I think he's kind of vague on healthcare. His website states that he believes in everyone having healthcare but that he doesn't support the bill that's being passed right now, which I don't think a lot of democrats do either. I agree with him that the bill in place right now has really bad waste and basically rips people off. But a lot of the pork in the current bill was because of A)Rebublicans wanting more money for health insurance companies, or B)Senators like Joe Lieberman basically holding up a 60 vote majority unless his bad ideas are in the bill.

He also supports the healthcare that Massachusetts currently provides which includes free health care for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Recent _poverty_rate_and_guidelines) (FPL)[/URL], and partially subsidized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#ci te_note-0) health care for those earning up to 300% of the FPL, depending on an income-based sliding scale. [URL]https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/binary/com.epicentric.contentmanagement.se rvlet.ContentDeliveryServlet/About%2520Us/CommonwealthCare/Commonwealth%2520Care%2520Program%2 520Guide.pdf

It is puzzling though that there are polls out there suggesting the democrats try working harder with the republicans on getting these reforms done while it seems to me the republicans haven't really come out with any good ideas that would seriously make healthcare an affordable option to everyone. Some voted a year ago for democratic policies that never really got a chance to take action because they were blocked for the most part by republicans. And people just see this as failed policy for some reason? Just doesn't really make sense that people would change their mind so fast without allowing the process to actually work.

[nfgrocker16]

Both sides are looking at Brown's victory wrong. The common held belief that Massachusetts' voters are overwhelmingly registered Democrats is stupid. The official breakdown of registration is 37% Democratic, 13% Republican, 50% Independent as of late 2006. Independents dominate Massachusetts, not Democrats. Now of course there is also a misconception that all Indepedent voters are swing voters, which is totally false. For instance Deerfield has a 29% D, 12% R, 58% I voter breakdown yet voted for Coakley 63-36, while Southbridge has a 40% D, 10% R, 50% I voter breakdown and voted for Brown 55-42.

The main problem for Democrats in Massachusetts was the fact that turnout in traditionally working class Democratic strongholds like Lowell, Springfield, Worcester and Fall River was so low. Turnout was also terrible in Boston. Obama wasn't going to increase the turnout of these voters and his policies haven't really been popular in these areas, even though the Democrats dominate these towns. Not to mention Coakley was the worst sort of candidate for these voters.

I think people forget about how the likability factor of candidates sometimes influences voters in how they vote.

[SunnyInPhilly]

ehh, I think he's kind of vague on healthcare. His website states that he believes in everyone having healthcare but that he doesn't support the bill that's being passed right now, which I don't think a lot of democrats do either. I agree with him that the bill in place right now has really bad waste and basically rips people off. But a lot of the pork in the current bill was because of A)Rebublicans wanting more money for health insurance companies, or B)Senators like Joe Lieberman basically holding up a 60 vote majority unless his bad ideas are in the bill.

He also supports the healthcare that Massachusetts currently provides which includes free health care for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Recent _poverty_rate_and_guidelines) (FPL), and partially subsidized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidized) health care for those earning up to 300% of the FPL, depending on an income-based sliding scale. https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/binary/com.epicentric.contentmanagement.se rvlet.ContentDeliveryServlet/About%2520Us/CommonwealthCare/Commonwealth%2520Care%2520Program%2 520Guide.pdf

It is puzzling though that there are polls out there suggesting the democrats try working harder with the republicans on getting these reforms done while it seems to me the republicans haven't really come out with any good ideas that would seriously make healthcare an affordable option to everyone. Some voted a year ago for democratic policies that never really got a chance to take action because they were blocked for the most part by republicans. And people just see this as failed policy for some reason? Just doesn't really make sense that people would change their mind so fast without allowing the process to actually work.

This post is so biased, it's not even worth responding to.

[caveBEAR]

This post is so biased, it's not even worth responding to.

It's biased if you've only gotten your news from FOX, reality if you haven't.

How was this 'so biased' that it 'wasn't even worth responding to'? Try.

[SunnyInPhilly]

It's biased if you've only gotten your news from FOX, reality if you haven't.

How was this 'so biased' that it 'wasn't even worth responding to'? Try.

Nope. Has nothing to do with where I get my news.

ehh, I think he's kind of vague on healthcare. His website states that he believes in everyone having healthcare but that he doesn't support the bill that's being passed right now, which I don't think a lot of democrats do either.

Alot of Dems do agree with it. That's why this is such a big deal. They can no longer strong-arm their version of healthcare through. The current bill may not have been optimal for Dems, but it's certainly not going to get any better for them now that they can't force their hand.

But a lot of the pork in the current bill was because of A)Rebublicans wanting more money for health insurance companies, or B)Senators like Joe Lieberman basically holding up a 60 vote majority unless his bad ideas are in the bill.

Only Republicans and Lieberman. Right. We won't bother mentioning anyone like Ben Nelson, because he's a Democrat, and we all know they don't do that kind of stuff.
"Heineman has attacked Nelson’s support for health care reform, even as the senator cut a deal exempting Nebraska from new Medicaid payments and other home-state goodies."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1209/Poll_Ben_Nelson_in_political_troubl e.html

It is puzzling though that there are polls out there suggesting the democrats try working harder with the republicans on getting these reforms done while it seems to me the republicans haven't really come out with any good ideas that would seriously make healthcare an affordable option to everyone.

Please provide links to these polls. And what exactly is affordable? If you call anywhere from $900 billion - $1 trillion over 10 years "affordable", then sure.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/...are/index.html

Some voted a year ago for democratic policies that never really got a chance to take action because they were blocked for the most part by republicans. And people just see this as failed policy for some reason? Just doesn't really make sense that people would change their mind so fast without allowing the process to actually work.

They had a Democratic supermajority and President for a year. How exactly did the Republicans block them from taking action? People don't see it as failed policy, they see it as no policy. Either one looks bad to voters.

In all honesty I find it interesting that a lot of conservatives see this as an example of people voting against democratic policy ideas. I think its more of a vote of anger against the democrats not really being able to initiate a lot of policies they were running on. I don't think people's opinions have changed on issues like health insurance reform where they still think some sort of public option would be a good thing. They're just mad it hasn't gotten done yet.

So you think voters have or haven't changed their minds? Just want to make sure we're clear.

[xshady121]

Nope. Has nothing to do with where I get my news.



Alot of Dems do agree with it. That's why this is such a big deal. They can no longer strong-arm their version of healthcare through. The current bill may not have been optimal for Dems, but it's certainly not going to get any better for them now that they can't force their hand.



Only Republicans and Lieberman. Right. We won't bother mentioning anyone like Ben Nelson, because he's a Democrat, and we all know they don't do that kind of stuff.
"Heineman has attacked Nelson’s support for health care reform, even as the senator cut a deal exempting Nebraska from new Medicaid payments and other home-state goodies."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1209/Poll_Ben_Nelson_in_political_troubl e.html



Please provide links to these polls. And what exactly is affordable? If you call anywhere from $900 billion - $1 trillion over 10 years "affordable", then sure.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/...are/index.html



They had a Democratic supermajority and President for a year. How exactly did the Republicans block them from taking action? People don't see it as failed policy, they see it as no policy. Either one looks bad to voters.



So you think voters have or haven't changed their minds? Just want to make sure we're clear.



I don't know who you are but I like you. You're going to be a great asset to the politics forum, shutting down all those who think they can just spray vague ideas and theories and beliefs and pass them off as cold hard fact.

[xshady121]

It's biased if you've only gotten your news from FOX, reality if you haven't.

How was this 'so biased' that it 'wasn't even worth responding to'? Try.

Bear, that original post by NFGrocker was by far the fluffiest peice of crap this side of zion. He makes grand assumptions and "gut feelings" and passes them off as trends of public opinion and facts. He's easily the worst poster on these forums in that regard.

This election wasn't a referendum on Obama or demoractic ideals. Neither were the two pervious elections (VA and NJ). Nope. Just frustrated voters. Never you mind these "public opinion polls" or "facts". I've got the only facts that matter, and they're in my gut.

That logic only works for Colbert. You sir, are no colbert.

[GuitarR0cker1]

There's some interesting info here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/WaPoKaiserHarvard_MassPoll_Jan22.pd f).

[caveBEAR]

Bear, that original post by NFGrocker was by far the fluffiest peice of crap this side of zion. He makes grand assumptions and "gut feelings" and passes them off as trends of public opinion and facts. He's easily the worst poster on these forums in that regard.

This election wasn't a referendum on Obama or demoractic ideals. Neither were the two pervious elections (VA and NJ). Nope. Just frustrated voters. Never you mind these "public opinion polls" or "facts". I've got the only facts that matter, and they're in my gut.

That logic only works for Colbert. You sir, are no colbert.

Sorry, I thought he meant 'frustrated' as in frustrated at the pick of Democratic candidate.

This is what I get for jumping in. :shrug:

[GuitarR0cker1]

Bear, that original post by NFGrocker was by far the fluffiest peice of crap this side of zion. He makes grand assumptions and "gut feelings" and passes them off as trends of public opinion and facts. He's easily the worst poster on these forums in that regard.

This election wasn't a referendum on Obama or demoractic ideals. Neither were the two pervious elections (VA and NJ). Nope. Just frustrated voters. Never you mind these "public opinion polls" or "facts". I've got the only facts that matter, and they're in my gut.

That logic only works for Colbert. You sir, are no colbert.
It wasn't a referendum on Obama. According to the exit poll I posted 61 percent of all voters in this election approved of Obama and only 38 percent disapproved.

[davehennessy]

The People's Seat; thank God for Brown's win.. Coakley is just another one of Obama's manufactured liberal machines

[SunnyInPhilly]

It wasn't a referendum on Obama. According to the exit poll I posted 61 percent of all voters in this election approved of Obama and only 38 percent disapproved.

That had to be hard to find, considering there were no exit polls.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487038370045750131116 82315540.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/19/massachusetts-exit-polls_n_428655.html

[caveBEAR]

The People's Seat; thank God for Brown's win.. Coakley is just another one of Obama's manufactured liberal machines

God? Don't you think she'd be a bit more busy running the Universe than to worry about elections?

[GuitarR0cker1]

That had to be hard to find, considering there were no exit polls.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487038370045750131116 82315540.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/19/massachusetts-exit-polls_n_428655.html
False (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/mass-poll22.html)

[GuitarR0cker1]

The People's Seat; thank God for Brown's win.. Coakley is just another one of Obama's manufactured liberal machines
What the fuck? Coakley was an avid Clinton supporter and actually did a great job as Massachusetts AG.

[caveBEAR]

What the fuck? Coakley was an avid Clinton supporter and actually did a great job as Massachusetts AG.

YOU'RE JUST A CHILD!

Your eyes are still closed to the TURTH!

[xshady121]

It wasn't a referendum on Obama. According to the exit poll I posted 61 percent of all voters in this election approved of Obama and only 38 percent disapproved.

You don't know sarcasm when you see it.

[xshady121]

What the fuck? Coakley was an avid Clinton supporter and actually did a great job as Massachusetts AG.

100% False.

YOU'RE JUST A CHILD!

Your eyes are still closed to the TURTH!

Dude, Coakley is another part of the democratic machine. Maybe you guys out in Idaho or wherever the bear lives don't think so, but asking any voter in MA (and trust me, I asked quite a few the weekend before election day), Coakley was seen to be just another part of the machine-- which is also the problem.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Dude, Coakley is another part of the democratic machine. Maybe you guys out in Idaho or wherever the bear lives don't think so, but asking any voter in MA (and trust me, I asked quite a few the weekend before election day), Coakley was seen to be just another part of the machine-- which is also the problem.
Coakley really isn't part of the Democratic machine. To suggest that she is is pretty laughable. She gets most of her support from suburban Boston and the relatively wealthy Pioneer Valley. Her main opponent in the Democratic Primary, Capuano, is a part of the Democratic machine. Coakley isn't part of the Democratic machine. She basically ran on Patrick's coatails in 2006, and he certainly isn't a part of the machine. Notice how shitty the turnout was in machine dominated towns. I don't really see how she can be seen as another part of the machine, just because she was "supported" by the machine against Brown.

Anyways from what I've read about Coakley's actions as AG, she did a good job. Without knowing how terrible her campaign would be, I'd support her again in the primary.

[nfgrocker16]

Alot of Dems do agree with it. That's why this is such a big deal. They can no longer strong-arm their version of healthcare through. The current bill may not have been optimal for Dems, but it's certainly not going to get any better for them now that they can't force their hand.

False. Most Dems in the house and senate I've heard talk about this bill don't like that the price tag is so big but still believe something needs to pass and then we can fix it down the road. I actually agree more with someone like Howard Dean or Barney Frank who said he thought the bill was dead and that he opposed taking extraordinary measures to pass it. I'll come back to your Dem's can't strong-arm idea in a minute.

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2010/01/21/news_update/6817233.txt

Only Republicans and Lieberman. Right. We won't bother mentioning anyone like Ben Nelson, because he's a Democrat, and we all know they don't do that kind of stuff.
"Heineman has attacked Nelson’s support for health care reform, even as the senator cut a deal exempting Nebraska from new Medicaid payments and other home-state goodies."

Never said only Republicans and Joe Lieberman. And I never said only Republicans were actually the one's putting pork in the bill. I merely meant their complete opposition to any reform by democrats was a catalyst for some Dem's to try and get anything passed. Ben Nelson can hardly be considered a real Democrat who's in step with the liberal Democrats' health-care agenda. He's the most conservative Democrat in the senate and its unfair to assume his conservative ideas are in step with the majority of the party. Its also wrong to assume you can consider him, Mary Landrieu or other Blue Dog Democrats as champions of real progressive Democratic policy.

Please provide links to these polls. And what exactly is affordable? If you call anywhere from $900 billion - $1 trillion over 10 years "affordable", then sure.

Here's the poll where I got the info on people wanting the two parties to work together: http://www.usatoday.com/news/usaedition/2010-01-21-poll-health-care_N.htm

Also you assume I'm arguing that the current health care bill is affordable. I don't. And wouldn't disagree with you that most people don't like the price tag on it. But my point wasn't if people think we should have health-care reform despite cost. It was that people think that in general actual affordable (to people) reform (w/o all the pork and poor spending) is a good thing. But to get that past you need more support in the senate than there is now. Otherwise pork gets loaded on to basically buy votes.

Here are a few other articles I found interesting:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/health-care-polls-opinion-gap-or.html
This one basically discusses that people have been misinformed about the current health care bill. Also argues that individual components of the bill are popular which would suggest people do agree with some sort of reform.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6084856.shtml
This poll helps to prove my point that people don't think the bills go far enough in certain regards (covering American's.)

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/December/23/analysis-health-care-polls.aspx

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_health_care_ma_sen_gallup_1.php
Interesting in that of the people polled 40% to 36% say they still think we're better off with Democrats controlling the house.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/ma_sen_election_post_12021.php
"When senator-elect Brown goes to Washington, do you think he should mainly work with the Democrats to try to get some Republican ideas into legislation or should mainly work to stop the Democratic agenda?
82% Work with Democrats, 11% Stop Democratic agenda
On health care: 70% Work with Democrats, 28% Stop changes"

They had a Democratic supermajority and President for a year. How exactly did the Republicans block them from taking action? People don't see it as failed policy, they see it as no policy. Either one looks bad to voters.

They didn't have any kind of real supermajority. They were never able to strong arm anything while they have several members of the senate who have sided on a very conservative side of the debate. Plus we have a president who seems to want to please everyone instead of try and push the agenda on which he ran on. However, its not really up to him to decide policy such as healthcare until it gets to his desk.

So you think voters have or haven't changed their minds? Just want to make sure we're clear.

Voters haven't significantly changed their mind on what they want. They haven't been given what they asked for so they're upset which is what the polls are showing. Most people think the bill should have gone further to provide real change instead of filling it full of pork and trying to just hammer something through and worry about it later. Plus a lot of people who oppose the bill have been misinformed or just don't know certain facts about parts of the bill. Still haven't heard a good argument suggesting people who know the facts just like the way health care and health insurance is going and don't see any need for change.

[nfgrocker16]

Bear, that original post by NFGrocker was by far the fluffiest peice of crap this side of zion. He makes grand assumptions and "gut feelings" and passes them off as trends of public opinion and facts. He's easily the worst poster on these forums in that regard.

This election wasn't a referendum on Obama or demoractic ideals. Neither were the two pervious elections (VA and NJ). Nope. Just frustrated voters. Never you mind these "public opinion polls" or "facts". I've got the only facts that matter, and they're in my gut.

That logic only works for Colbert. You sir, are no colbert.

Yet you're the one who has made claims without any actual proof other than your own word. At least one poll suggesting informed American's don't want heath-care reform would be nice. I never mentioned that this election was a referendum on Obama or Democratic ideals. And my poll posts have consistently agreed with me and YOU that it was about frustrated voters. So I don't understand how you can claim that my views on what has happened have no basis. I've agreed with you on why this election turned out the way it did but yet you disagree with me on this? That doesn't make sense.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125030/Healthcare-Bill-Support-Ticks-Up-Public-Divided.aspx

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/in-polls-much-opposition-to-health-care.html

[caveBEAR]

Dude, Coakley is another part of the democratic machine. Maybe you guys out in Idaho or wherever the bear lives don't think so, but asking any voter in MA (and trust me, I asked quite a few the weekend before election day), Coakley was seen to be just another part of the machine-- which is also the problem.

I was just remarking about the guy thinking Coakley was with Obama when Machu pointed out the Clinton connection.

[xshady121]

I was just remarking about the guy thinking Coakley was with Obama when Machu pointed out the Clinton connection.

Fair enough.

To say she "wasn't part of the machine" is a farse though. It's one of the reasons she lost.

[caveBEAR]

Fair enough.

To say she "wasn't part of the machine" is a farse though. It's one of the reasons she lost.

Of course. I just thought it was humorous that the guy worded it like Obama sent Coakley in personally, and then Machu came in and corrected it. Beyond that, Machu has his own opinions, but I just thought it was humorous that the 15 year old (once again) knew more facts than people almost twice his age.

[xshady121]

Of course. I just thought it was humorous that the guy worded it like Obama sent Coakley in personally, and then Machu came in and corrected it. Beyond that, Machu has his own opinions, but I just thought it was humorous that the 15 year old (once again) knew more facts than people almost twice his age.

GuitarRocker came in and corrected.

He's like the more annoying, less informed, douche-y version of Machu.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Fair enough.

To say she "wasn't part of the machine" is a farse though. It's one of the reasons she lost.
I'm sure lots of the voters thought she was part of the machine. She wasn't though.

[GuitarR0cker1]

GuitarRocker came in and corrected.

He's like the more annoying, less informed, douche-y version of Machu.
You aren't going to respond to my post? At least read this (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/19/827160/-My-Mom-is-a-Democratic-machine-operative-in-Bostonheres-her-explanation).

[Machu505]

GuitarR0cker1Jesse and I are the same person, actually.

I would argue too that Coakley was just a machine politician.

[davehennessy]

What the fuck? Coakley was an avid Clinton supporter and actually did a great job as Massachusetts AG.

you clearly don't know what you're talking about (Idaho)

[GuitarR0cker1]

you clearly don't know what you're talking about (Idaho)
You said Coakley was a part of the "Obama" machine, when she supported Clinton.

[xshady121]

You said Coakley was a part of the "Obama" machine, when she supported Clinton.

You ignored his point.

Coakley was a miserable AG. At the very least, she made a lot of questionable calls that got a lot of people really upset with her. Do some research.

[davehennessy]

You said Coakley was a part of the "Obama" machine, when she supported Clinton.

Obama and Clinton are two completely different eras of politics and presidency. I agree with Shady, do some research

[Machu505]

Obama and Clinton are two completely different eras of politics and presidency. I agree with Shady, do some research
Especially since Hillary Clinton is a secretary in the Obama administration, right?

[GuitarR0cker1]

You ignored his point.

Coakley was a miserable AG. At the very least, she made a lot of questionable calls that got a lot of people really upset with her. Do some research.
He had no point to make...

Anyways my opinion of her actions as AG is based off of her challenging the consitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and winning settlements from Goldman Sachs. I like what she did in Massachusetts v. EPA and I like that she supported a buffer zone law for abortion. I hate what she did in regards to the marijuana initiative and I don't really know much about Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.

Coakley had sky high approval ratings before she started campaigning and she dominated in the Democratic Primary. A 56-15 rating is pretty damn good for an AG so it doesn't sound like residents of Massachusetts really disapproved of her performance.

[xshady121]

He had no point to make...

Anyways my opinion of her actions as AG is based off of her challenging the consitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and winning settlements from Goldman Sachs. I like what she did in Massachusetts v. EPA and I like that she supported a buffer zone law for abortion. I hate what she did in regards to the marijuana initiative and I don't really know much about Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.

Coakley had sky high approval ratings before she started campaigning and she dominated in the Democratic Primary. A 56-15 rating is pretty damn good for an AG so it doesn't sound like residents of Massachusetts really disapproved of her performance.

I think the better question is how much does the average citizen know about what their AG does.

Te answer is zilch, which discredits any public opinion poll you'll show me.

[caveBEAR]

I think the better question is how much does the average citizen know about what their AG does.

Te answer is zilch, which discredits any public opinion poll you'll show me.

Well, didn't you say that people in MA didn't like her? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but if you know they don't like her, but you don't trust public opinion polls...how do you know?

[xshady121]

Well, didn't you say that people in MA didn't like her? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but if you know they don't like her, but you don't trust public opinion polls...how do you know?

The poll was before she was running. Nobody bothers to look at their AG's history until she's running for senate.

[caveBEAR]

The poll was before she was running. Nobody bothers to look at their AG's history until she's running for senate.

Makes sense to me.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I think the better question is how much does the average citizen know about what their AG does.

Te answer is zilch, which discredits any public opinion poll you'll show me.
How does the average citizen know whether or not Coakley is a machine candidate?

The answer is they don't know, which discredits any anecdotal evidence you'll show me.

[xshady121]

How does the average citizen know whether or not Coakley is a machine candidate?

The answer is they don't know, which discredits any anecdotal evidence you'll show me.

Alright. I'll take political science advice from the kid who hasn't taken US History yet, let alone US Government.

[GuitarR0cker1]

The poll was before she was running. Nobody bothers to look at their AG's history until she's running for senate.
She had favorable ratings of 50-42 after the Democratic Primary in this PPP poll (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MA_45398436.pdf)and you can't tell me that there weren't Republicans and some Indies that rated her as unfavorable because she is a Democrat.

[xshady121]

She had favorable ratings of 50-42 after the Democratic Primary in this PPP poll (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MA_45398436.pdf)and you can't tell me that there weren't Republicans and some Indies that rated her as unfavorable because she is a Democrat.

Weren't you the same guy a few pages back who said "PPP Can't be trusted for shit"?

How do you have the gall to go ahead and cite them now?

[caveBEAR]

Alright. I'll take political science advice from the kid who hasn't taken US History yet, let alone US Government.

Don't write him off because of his age, you know they don't teach you shit in school anyway, and he generally has an above average grasp on what we're talking about, so he's taking the initiative somewhere. Don't knock that shit.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Alright. I'll take political science advice from the kid who hasn't taken US History yet, let alone US Government.
It looks like you pulled the age card on me. I lose now.

You still have made no fucking argument as to how Coakley is a machine candidate besides the fact that you interviewed some people that were voting. Cool, show me some hard facts, evidence etc.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Weren't you the same guy a few pages back who said "PPP Can't be trusted for shit"?

How do you have the gall to go ahead and cite them now?
I didn't say that, I said that based on NY-23 they had a bad record on special elections. They nailed this race.

If you want here is a Rassmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/massachusetts/election_2010_massachusetts_special _senate_election) that shows Coakley with 58 percent favorable ratings...

[xshady121]

I didn't say that, I said that based on NY-23 they had a bad record on special elections. They nailed this race.

If you want here is a Rassmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/massachusetts/election_2010_massachusetts_special _senate_election) that shows Coakley with 58 percent favorable ratings...
Favorability of her. Doesn't say her job approval.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Favorability of her. Doesn't say her job approval.
I didn't say that poll showed job approval. The point is that she was popular until her campaign started overused harsh negative ad's against Brown. Her retarded gaffes didn't help either.

Where's the evidence from you showing that she was hated by lots of people in Massachusetts before the campaign for the Senate seat began?

[xshady121]

I didn't say that poll showed job approval either. The point is that she was popular until her campaign started overused harsh negative ad's against Brown. Her retarded gaffes didn't help either.

And Brown was more popular by that same poll.

What are you trying to say.

[caveBEAR]

I didn't say that poll showed job approval. The point is that she was popular until her campaign started overused harsh negative ad's against Brown. Her retarded gaffes didn't help either.

Where's the evidence from you showing that she was hated by lots of people in Massachusetts before the campaign for the Senate seat began?

Yeah, that Red Sox remark couldn't have helped the campaign at all.

[caveBEAR]

And Brown was more popular by that same poll.

What are you trying to say.

Maybe no one hated anyone and more people liked Brown? :shrug:

[GuitarR0cker1]

And Brown was more popular by that same poll.

What are you trying to say.
So?

I'm trying to say that Coakley was well liked as an AG and was well liked until very late in the campaign.

[xshady121]

Maybe no one hated anyone and more people liked Brown? :shrug:

It's Massachusetts. You have to be pretty unlikable to loss a democratic seat.

[xshady121]

So?

I'm trying to say that Coakley was well liked as an AG and was well liked until very late in the campaign.

And I'm saying you'll learn not to throw so much stock in public opinion polls of positions American's traditionally know nothing about when you get to your first year Parties and Campaigns class.

[caveBEAR]

It's Massachusetts. You have to be pretty unlikable to loss a democratic seat.

True. Wasn't your original point that it wasn't unlikability, but instead a sign of a more 'conservative' swing in MA?

[xshady121]

True. Wasn't your original point that's it wasn't unlikability, but instead a sign of a more 'conservative' swing in MA?

Not at all.

Coakley ran a shitty campaign, compounded with the fact that nobody really liked her to begin with. Scott Brown ran a great campaign, was really likable, and managed to run against an incumbent when there wasn't even one running.

[caveBEAR]

Not at all.

Coakley ran a shitty campaign, compounded with the fact that nobody really liked her to begin with. Scott Brown ran a great campaign, was really likable, and managed to run against an incumbent when there wasn't even one running.

Got ya. What exactly is being argued here? Isn't that exactly what happened?

[GuitarR0cker1]

And I'm saying you'll learn not to throw so much stock in public opinion polls of positions American's traditionally know nothing about when you get to your first year Parties and Campaigns class.
I just see no evidence that shows that she was disliked at all as an AG. That is all.

[xshady121]

Got ya. What exactly is being argued here? Isn't that exactly what happened?

I'm not sure what's being argued.

[caveBEAR]

I'm not sure what's being argued.

This is why I never knock the crazies that come in and spout racial or bigoted shit. Look what happens to the regulars when they aren't here! We feast on each other!

[xshady121]

This is why I never knock the crazies that come in and spout racial or bigoted shit. Look what happens to the regulars when they aren't here! We feast on each other!

I just got back from a broomball game. I have all this pent up rage and aggression that I need to get out. I could use a crazy poster to wander in here about now.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Not at all.

Coakley ran a shitty campaign, compounded with the fact that nobody really liked her to begin with. Scott Brown ran a great campaign, was really likable, and managed to run against an incumbent when there wasn't even one running.

Got ya. What exactly is being argued here? Isn't that exactly what happened?
hahaha I agree 100% with what he said up there. I think this race did show a working class revolt of sorts shown by what happened in Lowell, Fall River and New Bedford with extremely low turnout there and good numbers for Brown. This happened in a lot of other traditonally working class townships too. That happened not only because Coakley ran a shitty campaign that did not appeal to the working class at all but also because of national events.

[caveBEAR]

I just got back from a broomball game. I have all this pent up rage and aggression that I need to get out. I could use a crazy poster to wander in here about now.

Were you logged in for the guy who 'didn't hate gays but didn't think they should be allowed to get married'?

[xshady121]

Were you logged in for the guy who 'didn't hate gays but didn't think they should be allowed to get married'?

Tonight? No. What'd I miss.

[caveBEAR]

Tonight? No. What'd I miss.

Pretty much that. A guy who didn't have 'anything against gay people' but didn't think it was important to support gay rights because 'there are bigger issues to worry about' like Health Care Reform, economic crisis', and things of that nature.

[davehennessy]

Pretty much that. A guy who didn't have 'anything against gay people' but didn't think it was important to support gay rights because 'there are bigger issues to worry about' like Health Care Reform, economic crisis', and things of that nature.

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying. I don't discriminate against gays; all I'm saying is if someone gave me a 'yes' or 'no' ballot and forced me to vote one way or the other on the question 'do you support gay marriage?', I would vote no

[saysmydoctor]

I just see no evidence that shows that she was disliked at all as an AG. That is all.
Read up: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/coakley-vs-brown.html

Also, she was never really challenged as a candidate prior to this race.

[xshady121]

Read up: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/coakley-vs-brown.html

Also, she was never really challenged as a candidate prior to this race.

I was looking for an article that I had read that cited all of her blunders and couldn't find it.

Turns out that was the article. Thanks for posting it.

[caveBEAR]

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying. I don't discriminate against gays; all I'm saying is if someone gave me a 'yes' or 'no' ballot and forced me to vote one way or the other on the question 'do you support gay marriage?', I would vote no

You clearly don't understand what 'discriminate against gays' means. If someone put a ballot in front of you, and all you fucking had to do was check 'Yes' for gay marriage, but you decided not to do it, that's pretty much the epitome of discrimination. Sure, maybe you're not a bigot like Geebee and I called you (the smart money's on the latter, however) but you're still discriminatory, and the fact that you see it different is hysterical.

[paper halo]

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying. I don't discriminate against gays; all I'm saying is if someone gave me a 'yes' or 'no' ballot and forced me to vote one way or the other on the question 'do you support gay marriage?', I would vote no

So, basically, you don't discriminate against gay people. Except when you do. Got it.

[rawesome]

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying. I don't discriminate against gays; all I'm saying is if someone gave me a 'yes' or 'no' ballot and forced me to vote one way or the other on the question 'do you support gay marriage?', I would vote no
wtf?

[GuitarR0cker1]

Read up: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/coakley-vs-brown.html

Also, she was never really challenged as a candidate prior to this race.
I agree with everything he says about her. She ran a terrible campaign, and was a terrible candidate. I remember reading somewhere that she was like this when running for AG too. I still stand by the opinion that she is much less of a machine candidate than Capuano, but still her lazy attitude towards campaigning that was shown in 2006 and this election seems to say that she is one. I have been convinced.

Wow though her record as AG on those cases is a mess.