Tea Party/ GOP-

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Are you paying attention to the dems dropping like flies?

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).

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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).

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?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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?

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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?

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

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

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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

A Final Look at Massachusetts Election Night Poll - Rasmussen Reports

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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

I agree, it does seem obvious...

From your report...

56% of Massachusetts voters named health care as the most important issue. That suggests it was a big issue, but Democrat Martha Coakley actually won among those voters by a 53% to 46% margin.

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.

While there was a somewhat similar correlation to views about Democratic Governor Deval Patrick, there was a clear suggestion that perceptions of the governor’s performance hurt Coakley. Among those voters who approve of the president’s job performance but disapprove of the governor’s, Brown won 93% to seven percent (7%). These voters accounted for just over 15% of all voters.

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

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by 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

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.