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.

Yeah, we've seen your peers:
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0093_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0074_large.jpg

your combining two concepts/posts. You said very clearly that the Brown win was not a reflection on Dems or Obama, the data draws a different conclusion, you decide.

The points I noted where key points Brown was running on, he was very clearly running on these. the poll data does not address it, however i would infer that less taxes = less government and that was clearly outlined in the poll.

As Far as Dems dropping like flies, I dont know of any high profile Reps dropping out, my ignorance, but the headlines the past few weeks have been filled with dems - Dodd, Dorgan, Kennedy, Bayh, . Bayh is not leaving saying he is to old, he is leaving saying things suck and I want out. I have to say that if you think this has nothing to do with Brown's win, the tea party movement or anti-Obama sentiment. Your nuts. Look at how bad this was for Repubs during the Bush years but you didnt see this kind of Exodus.

I did?

Bayh is leaving to distance himself from Obama's mess.
He will be Obamas opponent come 2012 and may just run as an Independent.

from Johnny D -
"Also, you (and just about everyone else) have pretty consistently made the Scott Brown vote a "Vote against the Democrats" and I disagree."

The poll data suggests otherwise.

Now you're the one combining two different concepts/posts.

Bayh is leaving because he is a moderate in a disgustingly polar Congress. If he tries to reach across the aisle, he had to deal with the fallout from the more senior, and more liberal, Democrats. If I remember correctly, Bayh has the most votes against Obama of all Dems.

He would fail miserably in a run for President though. The way politics are run now, the White House isn't made for a moderate. He probably wouldn't hold up well through the Primaries.

We need more people in Congress like him - somewhat middle of the road representatives that aren't afraid of working with the other side. Right now, the House and Senate are a pathetic political analogy of the Red Sox and Yankees.

Good analogy of the mess.

I thought Obama was going to bring great unity?

I agree, it does seem obvious...

From your report...

So it looks like the biggest issue was health care, but Coakley actually won support from those voters....

Here's the stat that I find interesting.

Considering that Brown won with 51.8% to Coakley's 47.1%, there are plenty of stats that can explain the results.

Personally, I think the idea of those liberal Mass voters rejecting "Kennedy's seat" is a bit over rated.

-spence

More importantly he could win his next election easily.

What should be troubling for the DNC is that he announced his plans without informing them first. He wanted out...

-spence

I love it...

RIJIMMY sez = the data draws a different conclusion

RIJIMMY sez = the poll data does not address it

So the facts are clear, yet to make his point he relies on his inference :rotf2:

-spence

I was too distracted by his inaccurate reference to my position that I missed his comical inference that taxes = less government. So, as long as the government cuts taxes, they should be entitled to regulate every facet of my life?

They already do. Join the "tea party". Your a better fit then you'll admit

Are you a member?

-spence

Sure, didn't you see me in the pics. JD posted

G.W. Bush's greatest accomplishment was the polarization and division of the people and legislature of the United States. He used it as a tool to get elected, but the division lives on as a cancer that prevents anything positive from getting accomplished in America. So much distrust and hatred has dragged us down to an impotent blustering, fumbling, incompetent caricature of what we once were. Negative is the daily norm, two negatives make a nothing. It's high time to just knock it the hell off and concentrate on the job at hand. That job includes us all. Who wants to live in a country with very rich vs. very poor? Other peoples failure does not make your success greater. In fact, it is to the contrary.

How old was GW when he started this polarization? I've been around for a long time, and, as far as I can remember, the legislature has always been polarized. As for the people, when have Democrats and Republicans not hated each other (politically)? I recall my Democrat co-workers hating GW's daddy, who was kind of a nice guy, even saying and making signs at rallies that shouted "Nuke Bush!"

GW Bush was a Unitifier...not a Dividifier...:uhuh:

:rotflmao: