let me get this straight...the current President of the United States has had known close associations with a radical domestic terrorist among others and has a plethera of radicals currently strolling the halls of the White House...and that's not a problem?...but a couple of people show up at a Tea Party rally with questionable signs and the entire movement is discredited...this is just like watching MSNBC:uhuh:

Scott Brown was a big win, and while a big deal, I don't think it is the massive landslide some see it as.
But...
how many republicans are retiring or not running for reelection so far in 2010...
I thought I read somewhere it was about 50/50 on the split.

A gauntlet was thrown with the energy legislation Obama is proposing. If the republicans fight what they pushed for just on political prinicipal (Drill baby drill!) then they are are definitely going to look like the party of no. If they do this, then they are going to loose any momentum the party might have gained from Scott Brown...

for the record, I as a tree-hugging, climate change believing sediment worker, am:
1. Pro Nuke
2. anti offshore drilling
3. Undecided on 'clean' coal...

OK, I'm wrong. The Tea Party will not harm repubs by creating a split among hard right conservatives, but rather it will take votes from the democrats.

This has been mentioned by you a few times in the past couple weeks. You're right that the dems are dropping like flies. However, there are more Republicans at the moment that have declared they will not be running for re-election than there are Dems. Incumbent anger is being felt by both parties.

Also, you (and just about everyone else) have pretty consistently made the Scott Brown vote a "Vote against the Democrats" and I disagree. I think the Scott Brown win included a perfect storm of factors - a weak Dem candidate, a horribly run campaign, Brown's lack of fitting the Washington mold and having that hometown appearance. (and yes, dissent of the Dems but not as the sole reason).

I'm surprised that people are acting like the rise of counter movement in the face of liberal hegemony is something new. That the recent rise of a Tea Party-like organization was not predictable, and that this represents a sea-change in American Politics. Cripes, South Carolina has not even seceded yet.

wrong - it is made up of primarily independent voters, they are the target for all elections. :uhuh:

Johnny - Brown's main FOCUS -

1. I can kill healthcare bill (you remember, Obama's key priority)
2. I am against giving rights to terrorsts (you remember, Obama pushed for trials of 9/11 suspects)
3. Less government (you remember, everything Obama has done in offce)

So in a state that was predominatly for OBAMA, the Brown vote was not a vote against Dems, although he stood opposite EVERYTHING they stood for? :wall:

do some legwork! So Joe, who is this tea party you speak of? Klans men? baptist ministers? white supremicists?
you do know that many of the key orgainziers are housewives and career women? Uh, yeah, they've been an organized voice in american politics. You guys are blind, blind to the facts cuz your watchin that garbage (bonus points to who can name the source of that quote)

Thus the problem with your argument. You assume that everyone votes based on policy and the issues. If the Presidential campaign taught us anything, it's that many people vote on sensationalism and voting against what's currently happening in the state.

People with a lot of time on their hands. No wonder the events are so well organized.:morons:

You give the voters alot more credit than they probably deserve.....

Scott Browns votes probably broke down like this

10% Because he drove a Truck
10% Because he's married to Gail Huff
10% Because his Daughter was on American Idol
10% Because he was in Cosmo
30% Because he wasn't Martha Coakley
30% because he Wasn't a Democrat.....

Dale Robertson writes like he was severely concussed.

The astute observer would recognize that both the Democrats and Republicans are under fire from angry voters who don't feel the government is working effectively.

Look at John McCain, he's in the fight of his life (with a freaking pundit) of all people, and he was the presidential nominee just 15 months ago!

As for the passing of legislation, the Congress has passed more legislation than any in decades, including a 700 billion dollar spending bill for the Stimulus. Obama made mistakes on health care and now he's paying the price...

I don't think any poll that projects 3 years into the future is really worth much. If the economy has dramatically improved Obama's chances for reelection are pretty good.

-spence

People voted for Brown out of anti-establishment resentment more than anything else. Coakley had a huge lead in the polls until the voters got the impression she felt entitled to the seat.

Brown simply exploited this opening and she couldn't respond.

Or do you think the Mass voters just changed their opinions on all the issues overnight?

-spence

Nice JD,

Housewifes and career women are morons with to much free time. You show your true colors with every post.

You don't have any idea what the hell you are talking about. The Ma. voters sent a clear message. You are in denial.

ok, Dad, Spence and Johnny, if you're right, why has Obama and his entire team been on a mad public relations campaign since the Brown win? Obviously they think its more than what you described.

Spence, the MA voters saw the implications of the Obama admin. So has the rest of the country, hence the polls.

seriously, there have been many disagreements out here but these guys are avoiding the blatant facts.....

You guys seem to be the ones in denial, or you're just not reading my posts.

I've never said that Brown's victory wasn't a message, in fact I've repeatedly stated that his victory was an anti-government message...but not one that's rooted too deeply in conservative vs liberal ideologies.

It's not like 10+ % of voters changed what they believed in during the last few weeks of the election. Brown ran a great campaign and Coakley made several mistakes...

-spence

I really hope you're right....but I just don't believe it was because all of the voters just became "Enlightened" all of sudden.

And I know everyone just wants to believe Obama is an idiot....but he is smart enough to realize the ramifications of what just happened in Mass....thats why the big public relations campaign.

The Administration has woken up to the fact that they've not done a good enough job controlling the debate.

As a result, people (i.e. mid-term voters) are ignoring the facts that the Government is actually doing some good right now. Little things like helping the US avoid a Depression and killing or capturing a hell of a lot of terrorists.

The issues surrounding spending are very real, but not entirely owned by any one party. The GOP under Bush has no issue doubling the size of the Federal debt.

-spence

Good try at vaguely relating me calling the idiots in the photos I posted morons and then making a joke about housewives.

Come back when you have something constructive that can be supported.

according to the NY Times and MSNBC...YES!

here are the stats - you draw you own conclusion, seems obvious to me

A Final Look at Massachusetts Election Night Poll - Rasmussen Reports

Did you read any of the newspaper or internet articles after the Brown win? Did you listen to Obama's own advisors and Democratic leaders after the MA election? Seriously, Spence you think it was because people got the impression that she felt she was entitled to the seat? She probably did feel that way, but the voters that were interviewed after the election voted for Brown because they are sick of the spending and having health care shoved down their throats, among other things. That is a fact. No matter how you try to spin it, it wasn't due to Coakley feeling entitled. It was due to voters wanting real change, not the crap Obama promised.

oooh look data that supports my argument!

There was a strong correlation between opinions about the president and votes in the Massachusetts race.

· Among those who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is handling the job, Coakley won 96% to three percent (3%).

· Among those who Strongly Disapprove, Brown won 97% to two percent (2%).

· Brown also won the vote from 95% of those who Somewhat Disapprove of the president’s job performance.

well whaty'a know Johnny!

and how about....


Among those who Strongly Favor the plan before Congress, Coakley won 97% of the vote.

· Among those who Strongly Oppose the plan, 98% voted for Brown.

· Coakley also picked up 90% of those who Somewhat Favor the plan while Brown was supported by 78% of those who Somewhat Oppose it.

· One key to Brown’s victory is that 41% Strongly Opposed the plan while just 25% Strongly Favored it.


Nah....nuthin to do with the Dems or Obama. Coakley sucks, Brown has a truck. yeee haw!

Hey, I said 30% was because he wasn't a Democrat....the truck only garnered him 10% :hee:...You've lost your sense of humor with old age

So how are #2 and #3 supported or are you going to vaguely group those in with people that disagree with Obama?
These numbers don't really support your argument much at all aside from the HC part. Oh, so people that don't like Obama and didn't like the HC proposal voted for the guy that's a Republican and against the HC proposal?

And you still haven't address your "Dropping Like Flies" comments that you try to continue making. It would be easy to say that the Dems see the writing on the walls and are jumping ship, if it weren't for the same number of total Republicans, in both the House and Senate combined, that are not running re-election.

Wiki has a clean layout of who's dropping out.
* Retiring Democrats (5 seats)
* Retiring Republicans (6 seats)
* Democratic incumbents (13 seats)
* Republican incumbents (12 seats)

United States Senate elections, 2010

JD, you have lost your mind! My positions are being supported across America. Both sides of you?....not so much.

All polls point to a major shift in the 2010 election. I am thrilled that incumbants from both parties are dropping like flies.