home

Upset Central: Brown Beats Coakley for Mass. Senate Seat

The AP has called the Massachussetts senate race for Scott Brown. Coakley called Brown to concede at 9:19pm ET.

Let the post-mortems and blame begin. (For me, it's relief, since I wanted her to lose, based her prosecutorial and crime warrior record.) BTD , who wanted Coakley to win, should be landing soon and will provide his analysis.

For me, it's back to American Idol (did you know Scott Brown's daughter was a semi-finalist?) She's been campaigning for her dad.

The Dems have some work to do between now and November. [More...]

Reaction from Dems:

9:44 p.m. -- "It goes without saying that we are disappointed in tonight's result. There will be plenty of time to dissect this race and to apply the lessons learned from it ... we will continue to work tirelessly on behalf of the America people and we will redouble our efforts to lay out a clear choice for voters this November" -- Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine.

9:38 p.m. -- I have no interest in sugar coating what happened in Massachusetts. There is a lot of anxiety in the country right now. Americans are understandably impatient" -- Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez.

In the days ahead, we will sort through the lessons of Massachusetts: the need to redouble our efforts on the economy, the need to show that our commitment to real change is as powerful as it was in 2008, and the reality that we cannot take a single thing for granted and cannot afford even a second of complacency."

< Mass. Senate Election Returns: Live Thread | Plan B >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What Ian said (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by lambert on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:37:55 PM EST
    Here:

    W

    hat does this mean?

    First of all, this will be taken as meaning HCR must be passed exactly as the Senate Bill.  That's already clear.  The Democratic reaction to losing Kennedy's seat will be to do exactly what voters were punishing them for.

    In 2010 Democrats will be slaughtered, absolutely slaughtered, because Obama and the senior Democratic leadership does not learn.

    In 2012 Obama will become a 1 term president, and a right wing populist will get into power.  That populist will turn out not to be a populist, and will do even stupider things than Obama economically (and may start a war, too).

    The job is to prepare for this, to get new members and leadership in in 2014.  Start working on it now.

    Because 2014 and 2016 are going to be your last chance.  If the US doesn't elect people who are willing to do what it takes in those two election years, then the US economy is going to be a smoking ruin, far worse even than it is now.

    This group of Dems have proved they can't learn.  Fortunately, and yes, I do mean fortunately, they are going to be swept out of power.  Yes, they'll be replaced by Republicans who are marginally worse, but that will give you your one chance to fix America.


    Yep.

    I simply (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:40:56 PM EST
    can't believe that they are actually still talking about passing this crap bill.

    Parent
    Relax (none / 0) (#32)
    by Manuel on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:10:19 PM EST
    They won't pass anything.  They can't pass anything.  There is no consensus on what to pass.  A majority of the country clearly doesn't want them to pass anything.  Neither the blue dogs nor the liberals have any incentive to negotiate with a weakened white house.  If they had the guts, they would pass the Senate bill which is better than nothing and fix it up a bit in budget legislation.  After all, they should put country ahead of party.  Since they don't have the guts the best they can do is to pass some sort of weak insurance regulation.

    Parent
    I would love to have been (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:02:49 PM EST
    a fly on a few Democratic walls tonight.

    Not only is they way they have thrown Coakley to the wolves another look at how utterly craven they are, but I expect a new wave of misogyny to roll through the ranks, both political and media, proving once again that Dems might just be incapable of learning from their mistakes.

    Parent

    My 1st thought: Under-bus'd didn't get up and push (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:33:00 PM EST
    This negative showing runs more deeply than Obamacare and all that hype to get behind this POS for history.

    Looks like the base is more than prepared to go to the mattresses here. [/Clemenza]

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:42:13 PM EST
    if there's a massive defection of blue dogs and even people in safe seats who are getting the message from MA then there's a chance that it won't happen.

    There are 28 democratic house seats up for (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:53:51 PM EST
    re-election from districts that McCain won.  There are 17 democratic house seats up in districts where McCain lost by less than 5% and the winner is a freshman that barely won the seat.  There are 8 additional democratic open seats and 1 defection so far.  

    How will these 54 people do?  Well..the democratic party just lost the seat held for 40 years by Liberal's most powerful and popular senator in the bluest state in the country where registered democrats outnumber republicans 3-1 and the democratic nominee had a 20 point lead.

    My question...the above seats are goners.  But if the democrats lose that seat, who is safe?  Is Boxer even safe?

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:56:21 PM EST
    I wouldnt say Boxer was even safe. There's no one that's safe and they all should be getting that message but I'm sure they won't.


    Parent
    I have never seen a party so suicidal. (5.00 / 12) (#17)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:02:46 PM EST
    I am  not kidding...the level of incompetence from the Democratic Party in how they blew a once in a lifetime opportunity to drive reform has been just staggering.  I do not want to hear ONE MORE TIME anyone talking about Obama's great political gifts, comparisons to FDR, etc.  

    Give me a feakin' break.

    Parent

    This crowd doesn't want reform, hasn't tried (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 08:14:01 AM EST
    for real reform, will use this defeat as an excuse to continue to pursue the status quo.

    Parent
    the message they will take is (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:03:03 PM EST
    the Lieberman message - just act more like Republicans! That's just how stupid they are.

    Parent
    White House looks again to Sen. Snowe: (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:07:49 PM EST
    The Senator who voted for the bill (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:10:12 PM EST
    before she voted to say that a key component was unconstitutional? Heh. Sorry.

    Parent
    "Those who ignore history . . . ." (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:15:08 PM EST
    I won't read it (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:18:13 PM EST
    You can't make me.

    Parent
    This Rahm (5.00 / 12) (#5)
    by dainla on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:43:39 PM EST
    thing seems to be going well.

    Thank God they kicked Howard Dean out.

    Wondering why discussion here of Coakley's (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:44:11 PM EST
    work as a prosecutor did not addresss the grand jury's decision not to return an indictment against the law enforcement officer who allegedly injured his 23-month old niece?  

    There's a time to vote, and a time to march (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by esmense on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:45:44 PM EST
    If progressives are told they have to shut up and sit down when Democrats hold the White House, the Congress and a 59 vote majority in the Senate -- that is exactly the time when they need to stand up and start shouting.

    With all due respect Jeralyn, (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:48:36 PM EST
    I hope you're happy.

    For my own part, I think things only gets worse from here for a while. Perhaps a year.

    A year? My bet would be 7 to 15 years. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:04:04 PM EST
    As the last year shows (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:07:37 PM EST
    it is always a mistake to make long term political projections based on one race.

    Parent
    Oh, not just this race. I probably would (none / 0) (#35)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:12:34 PM EST
    have said the same thing if she had won.

    House lost in 2010 or 2012, Senate lost in 2012, President Rubio 2016. That's the more optimistic scenario.

    Parent

    I think I just (none / 0) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:20:12 PM EST
    threw up in my mouth a little...

    Parent
    I'm wrong more often then I'm right, but (none / 0) (#122)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:11:44 PM EST
    this just seems to likely to me.

    Parent
    3 races (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 07:14:19 AM EST
    Can we please get over the WH lie that NJ and VA were lost because of strictly "local issues"? It's 3 races lost.

    Obama the Great is 3 for 3 in extactly 1 year -  and the seat that Ted Kennedy held for 40 years was lost on his watch.

    Parent

    Often things do need to get worse ... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by cymro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:05:00 PM EST
    ... before those who need to make changes finally accept it. I think this is such a time for Dems.

    I hope the exit polls send some messages that will actually penetrate the beltway's reality-insulation layers.

    Parent

    My response to that, as I often say, is (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:07:47 PM EST
    that sometimes things just keep getting worse. I think that's what is happening here.

    Parent
    When things just keep getting worse, ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by cymro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:30:58 PM EST
    ... individuals end up in prison, or dead, and their potential is wasted. But politicians get booted out of office, to be replaced by new ones who sometimes can do better than their predecessors. So at least there is the possibility that the political system can sometimes be self-correcting.

    Parent
    Perhaps a full blown depression (none / 0) (#24)
    by AX10 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:07:18 PM EST
    would have been what is needed.
    A nasty kick in the rear end works, sadly.

    Parent
    ... and everyone else.  We were lucky in this country with FDR.  

    Please people.  NOBODY needs a full-blown depression.  NOBODY.

    Parent

    I am relieved (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:13:38 PM EST
    I don't care for Brown's politics, but he's not the threat to the issues I care most about that Coakley represented.

    For those of you who have different issues priorities, I understand your disappointment. I think the Dems will rebound, this will wake them up.

    Parent

    Why do you think this loss will (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:16:34 PM EST
    "wake up" Dems?  What will the Dem. leadership in the WH and Congress take from this loss?

    Parent
    Nothing good. I'm banking on that. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:19:07 PM EST
    First Joe Lieberman, then Evan (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by brodie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:53:46 PM EST
    Bayh said the message is that Dems need to heed the voice of the moderate indies more.

    Now apparently former singer-songwriter turned senator Jimmy Webb (D-VA) is also singing the same tune, according to one Lawrence O'Donnell on Msnbc.

    Depressing but not surprising that people would read the results so differently.  Often happens after losing elections, and people see what they want to see.

    Somehow though I thought Webb was cut from a different cloth.  Apparently he's feeling nervous tonight.  Is he up for re-elect this year by any chance?

    Parent

    2012. He'll lose. (none / 0) (#97)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:56:38 PM EST
    I don't remember hearing one word (none / 0) (#118)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:54:48 PM EST
    from Webb during the last eight months of this entire health care debate. Do you?

    Parent
    "Is he up for re-elect this year..." (none / 0) (#119)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:56:59 PM EST
    by any chance?"

    Up, Up and Away in 2012, I suspect.

    Parent

    THESE Dems? (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Spamlet on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:18:11 PM EST
    I think the Dems will rebound, this will wake them up.

    Hope you are right. Believe it when I see it.

    Parent

    "Hope"... heh (none / 0) (#130)
    by phatpay on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:46:12 PM EST
    That's basically my take from this.
    To lose in such an area could be about the best thing possible to focus the Dems.
    We'll see, though.

    Interesting turn of events.
    I never thought she was a great candidate.
    And if ever there was a time to put a great candidate up, it was to replace an icon.

    I'll be the Repubs make some idiotic missteps as they smell blood in the water on the run up to the midterms. They can't help themselves either.

    Parent

    Don't blame Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 08:44:48 AM EST
    The last year -- in which Democrats have held the White House, the Congress and the Senate by a larger majority than the Republicans ever have had -- provides absolutely no reason to believe that having one more questionable Democrat (in this case on the very important issue of civil liberties) in the Senate would do anything to advance a progressive and/or reform agenda.  

    Let's get real here. Progressives worked their butts off in 2006 and 2008 getting out the vote and getting Democrats in office. It is unrealistic to think they could have been more successful than they were. (Or that the stumbling block to reform really is not having enough Democrats in office.)

    What did the Democrats progressive base get for their efforts? Apparently an administration that expects them to be grateful that their conservative President isn't named George W. Bush, can string a few sentences together better, and isn't hated overseas as much as his predecessor .

    If the administration and the party leadership were interested in serving the constituencies that put them in office, they could do it with a majority of 59 just as well as 60.

    But they figure those constituencies have nowhere else to go. So instead of serving their base, they try to serve the ideologically incoherent "middle."

    It is, I would point out, a mistake (dismissing, and even criticizing, the interests and concerns of your most loyal supporters) the Republicans never make.

    Which is why, even after all their failures, corruption and ignorant caterwauling, they may actually make significant gains in the mid-terms.

    Parent

    Any info on newly-elected Sen. Brown's (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:51:03 PM EST
    background re criminal justice policy?

    Parent
    Not that I'm aware of (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:51:57 PM EST
    It's hard to imagine that he's any better than Coakley, from Jeralyn's perspective.

    Parent
    He certainly knows how to play the Horton (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:00:28 PM EST
    card.

    Parent
    his views are probably (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:19:48 PM EST
    a disaster, but he's only one vote. Coakley would have been drafting crime bills. If you remember, I also opposed Joe Biden and only capitulated because of McCain/Palin.  McCain-Palin would have been the top two leaders in the country. Brown's 1 of 100. Big difference.

    I have never supported Brown. I opposed Coakley.

    Parent

    Of course once a former prosecutor (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:29:10 PM EST
    always a former prosecutor I guess, but, to me, a woman's right to choose is the key issue.  Even Coakley did a 180 on HCR (with Stupak amendment), her history supports her being a freedom of choice supporter.  

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:53:35 PM EST
    who's head should roll? Tim Kaine would be first on my list because I think he's done an abysmal job as head of the DNC. Then I guess whoever heads up the DSCC maybe.

    I'd say the DSCC guy is getting off to a bad start (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:06:35 PM EST
    To say the least. Next, please.

    Parent
    Upon further reflection (none / 0) (#139)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 06:54:51 AM EST
    and listening to NPR this morning, I think it should be the first guy that says: "This is no time to play the blame game." That would be the MA Dem Party Chair. I didn't catch his name.

    Parent
    Good!!! (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by mexboy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:56:41 PM EST
    The message couldn't be louder or more clear. Even after Obama, himself, campaigned for Coakley-she still lost!

    This doesn't portend well for the Obama administration. They either shape up or they'll be shipped out. I hope this kills that disastrous insurance enriching health bill.

    You got your teabagger Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by AX10 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:06:29 PM EST
    Mazeltov!


    Tea-baggers? Congratulations (4.50 / 8) (#44)
    by kidneystones on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:17:05 PM EST
    go to you and your ilk who did so much to degrade the debate. Where would Dems be now without Kieth O.'s screed calling the elected Republican state senator a racist, homophobe, tea-bagger, who supports violence against women?

    I mean, the name-calling really helps look like the responsible, honest party of adults.

    If there's one lesson Dems take from this slap in the face, it's that this kind of depressing invective accomplishes nothing.

    Take a bow. Brown couldn't have won without you.

    Parent

    And I don't have (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:14:20 PM EST
    the crime warrior and career law and order prosecutor.

    Parent
    Let's recruit a Primary challenger for AG. (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:54:04 PM EST
    Any ideas?

    Parent
    Weren't you just wishing (none / 0) (#57)
    by Spamlet on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:23:12 PM EST
    for a "full-blown depression"? Really on the side of the people, aren't you?

    Parent
    The America that people above (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by SOS on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:06:47 PM EST
    the age of 50 knew is really gone now.  That's obvious.

    Yes, I was just marveling at my own shock (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:15:31 PM EST
    I'm 52 now and Ted Kennedy was in that seat nearly my whole life, certainly my whole span of political awareness. And it was always 2 Dems as far as I can remember. The idea of a Republican senator from MA really never seemed a possibility to me - even today I predicted a Coakley win. I just couldn't believe MA would choose that guy.

    I don't know what will happen next, but it certainly is change. Promise kept.

    Parent

    I'm not in Massachusetts (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by Spamlet on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:30:16 PM EST
    But it seems to me that this was not so much about the Massachusetts electorate choosing Brown as of its sending Obama and the rest of the Democratic "leadership" a message to be ignored only at their peril (but probably to be ignored anyway). Arrogance + incompetence gets you election nights like this one, probably followed by the resumption of business as usual in the morning.

    Parent
    Slightly different take (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:53:41 PM EST
    I think that the Dem ran a positively tone deaf, incompetent campaign; on top of that, Massachusetts has a public health insurance plan that is not ideal, but, so the pundits say, voters in MA think it is better than the Senate bill, and don't want to give up what they have for a gamble on what might very well be an inferior plan.

    I hope some non-profit has been conducting exit polls.  I find it hard to believe that the Dems did not conduct exit polls today. Or perhaps the Dems will do the type of post-election phone polls to a non-representative sample of voters as the Dems did for their "analysis" of the 2004 Ohio vote and pass off the "results" as meaningful.  

    Parent

    That is probably true (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:35:41 PM EST
    Even so I did not think they would use one of their Senate seats to send a message like that.  Of course, it is only a two year seat, so maybe it was worth it to them.


    Parent
    The problem is that nothing (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by dk on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:38:10 PM EST
    else has worked to get them to listen to us.

    Parent
    We shall see just what they listened to (none / 0) (#89)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:45:58 PM EST
    So THIS is what postpartisanship (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by oldpro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:07:37 PM EST
    looks like.

    Two governorships and a Senate seat...THIS senate seat...and a 5% spread.  Good grief.

    Great job, Democrats.  What a relief not to feel any ownership of this looming disaster...even worse than I imagined when I jumped ship.

    I hoped I was wrong and I take no satisfaction in being right.

    Ditto. (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:14:13 PM EST
    ...even worse than I imagined when I jumped ship.

    I hoped I was wrong and I take no satisfaction in being right.

    There were so many effin' red flags though . . .


    Parent

    And more red flags now. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oldpro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:18:05 PM EST
    Reconciliation - the only way forward.

    Just do it.

    Parent

    According to Lawr O'Donnell, (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by brodie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:44:27 PM EST
    who used to work on the senate Finance comm'ee, using Reconciliation is going to be more of a problem than people realize.  

    And you'll still need 60 votes on procedural matters to keep the Rec process going, so he sez.  That in addition to not being able to pass more than pieces of the overall HCR bill.

    Parent

    O'Donnell analysis (re McConnell) was interesting (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:06:45 PM EST
    I'm sure it came up in another TL thread -- I don't closely track all of them -- but in case it didn't, here it is. (via HuffiPo)

    Parent
    I think the analysis is wothy of a BTD (none / 0) (#113)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:44:47 PM EST
    comment.  Seems to me O'Donnell is saying that Mitch McConnell decided that allowing Congress to pass the Senate version of health care would be a great idea, as it would set up the Repubs' 2010 campaign thems -- i.e., they could run against the "taxes" on health care plans.  McConnell's strategy then was to agree that instead of the usual 51-vote majority required for amendments, no amendments could carry without 60 votes. The result is that several amendments, some by Repubs & some by Dems, that had the backing of over 50 Senators, but not as many as 60, were thus defeated, paving the way for the Dems to pass the Senate health care bill and the Repubs to be able to campaign against the "new" taxes.  The problem for McConnell's strategy, now, however, is that the MA election results may mean that the Senate Dems' health care bill does not pass. What's rather astounding is that O'Donnell claims that most Senators do not understand the deal made between Reid & McConnell over amendments and the normal procedure changed by that "deal".
    Any other takes on O'Donnell's piece?

    Parent
    Where there's a will....to coin a phrase... (none / 0) (#103)
    by oldpro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:04:30 PM EST
    Out of curiosity, did O's Dumpling Dems show up? (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:08:05 PM EST
    Wondering whether the "O"mentum behind the primary and prez-election was a unique phenomenon* or if that new votership played into this race at all.

    (IMO, the Obama phenomenon was a combination of a new tech -- the Xmas gift must-have iPhone and plans -- early hype from Iowa/NH, combining with Obama's mediagenic personality.)

    Coattails (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:12:34 PM EST
    Wonder if any dems will be asking O to campaign for them this year.

    If not, we all save a ton of taxpayer dollars if Airforce One isn't performing as his personal taxi just to go out speeching :)

    Parent

    We don't pay for that (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:23:18 PM EST
    if it's solely a campaign trip, which this way.  The alphabet soup of Dem. Party committees pays for it.

    Parent
    We don't pay for that (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:23:36 PM EST
    if it's solely a campaign trip, which this was.  The alphabet soup of Dem. Party committees pays for it.

    Parent
    That, plus caucus fraud... (4.33 / 6) (#33)
    by lambert on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:12:25 PM EST
    ... along with the Rules and Bylaws Committee (chaired by health insurance CEO James Roosevelt) handing Obama delegates he didn't earn, then disregarding the majority of Dem voters (especially those in big states like NY, CA, and TX), and cheerfully throwing them under the bus afterwards.

    Parent
    This comment is like a dizzying trip (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:18:33 PM EST
    back to spring 2008. I doubt many others are still living there.

    Parent
    Well, I did keep my time share (5.00 / 9) (#65)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:27:07 PM EST
    Lambert has it this week though

    Parent
    Isn't the point that the actual (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by observed on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:34:26 PM EST
    work of unifying the Democrats after the primary never happened? Thanks to which, the Obama-led party is still paying a significant marginal cost.

    Parent
    No, not really (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:35:30 PM EST
    I have made my fair share of criticisms about how that was handled, but the party was clearly unified.

    Parent
    You don't think there are 2-3% of Dems (none / 0) (#81)
    by observed on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:38:58 PM EST
    who are withholding their votes because of that?
    That would be my guess, but I don't know a poll.

    Parent
    There has never been a time (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:41:27 PM EST
    when 2-3% of Dems weren't withholding their vote for some reason or another.

    Parent
    Excellent point (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:47:24 PM EST
    The leaders just pick their poison.

    Parent
    Plz, you're in a bunch about people's ~happiness~ (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:48:12 PM EST
    ... (gossamer) so don't pathologize wondering how Obama's local diehard support figured into this race as living in the past.

    But here's a tune for you anyway.

    Parent

    Then you're wrong. Dems are very 2008 (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by kidneystones on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:52:35 PM EST
    See above. Dems still figure it's 2008 and that calling (insert opponent's name here) a 'racist/tea-bagger' loud and often, the electorate will simply proceed to the voting booth and pull the lever for the Dem.

    Some Dems love the term 'tea-bagger'. It's not winning Dems any new fans or elections.

    Shrill only works when you're in the back of the bus, the other guy is driving over the cliff. When the steering wheel is in my hands, my screams simply serve to frighten people.

    Or get them off the bus. I love invective, but only when it works. This stuff simply makes Dems look like a-holes.

    Parent

    Learning curve just went flat. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:20:16 PM EST
    No need to live, relive, whatever.

    Need is to learn from the past.

    Or, of course, repeat it.

    Parent

    I think the banishing of the (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:28:15 PM EST
    rule of law throughout the nation is never a lesson not worth repeating.  


    Parent
    Don't kid yourself :) (none / 0) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:31:04 PM EST
    you'd be suprised, then. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Klio on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:38:07 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Shorter andgarden (none / 0) (#105)
    by lambert on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:14:34 PM EST
    "Get over it!"

    Sure, like FL 2000...

    Parent

    The very comparison (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:17:12 PM EST
    is an insult to Al Gore.

    Parent
    I am wondering about African American (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:13:27 PM EST
    registered voter turnout.

    Parent
    More interesting to me would be (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:13:16 AM EST
    the voter turnout in major college towns-- Cambridge, Boston, Amherst, etc. Did the creative class and the college youth show up to vote for Coakley? My thinking is probably not. So many couldn't be bothered to vote down ticket in 2008, I'd be surprised if they turned out in force for this.

    So how's that whole building the future of the Democratic Party thing going?

    Parent

    Why would they come out for Coakley?... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 08:14:47 AM EST
    The creative class and college aged youth do more drugs than average, party more than average...and far too many have the arrest records to show for it.

    I don't know about the colleges up in Mass, but the ones I attended in NY and FL weren't exactly pro-prosecution country...that sh*t might fly in gated communities, but they go Republican more often than not.  On the college scene you've got the cops busting up your kegger and the DA making you pick up trash. Couple that in with the youth never knowing a Dem party that didn't eerily resemble the Repub party, where's the motivation?

    I could easily see them coming to Jeralyn's reasonable "sit this one out" conclusion.

    Parent

    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 08:34:22 AM EST
    College kids would be so averse to voting for a prosecutor - most college kids, whle htey may party, are not all about rebelling against the police.  I think many of them were in love with the personality of Obama, rather than an interest in the Democratic Party and its platform.   By the time the vote came in MA, it  was "cool" to vote for Obama (even though he didn't win).

    Parent
    I'm not talking rebellion... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 08:46:14 AM EST
    I'm talking "why vote for the people who put chains on my wrists?"

    Parent
    Voters like (none / 0) (#148)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 09:07:17 AM EST
    law & order, tough on crime, etc.  They do not like to vote for people  who they see as "getting criminals off" or people (not neessarily lawyers) who do not respect the rule of law.

    You can like that or not, but that's reality.

    Parent

    not younger voters n/t (none / 0) (#150)
    by CST on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 09:20:47 AM EST
    not to the same extent at all

    Parent
    Voters like you maybe... (none / 0) (#152)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 09:22:44 AM EST
    not voters like me, not young voters generally.

    We've grown up in a different era jb...its been all "tough on crime" all the time since we were in diapers...we've grown up with crime rates falling and tyranny rising.  A backlash is to be expected, me might be starting to see it.  Fear of the state is starting to trump fear of the "criminal".

    Parent

    I challenge you (none / 0) (#156)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 09:35:21 AM EST
    go ask 10 or 20 random people (not people who hang in your group).  See what they think about prosecutors, police,and criminal defense attorneys. See who they'd vote for in a generic race. They probably think the whole group is corrupt, but see who they'd rather have as a governor, or Senator.  

    Despite what you think - people still like rules and order.  And frankly, the more they see politicians and famous people do outlandish and even criminal things, and the more they get away with slaps on the wrist or no suffer no consequences, the more people realize how unjust our system is, so they want our leaders to be tougher.

    I bet you.

    Parent

    Look at pop culture... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:03:27 AM EST
    There is a reason NWA sold millions of records rappin' "F*ck the Police"...it is popular sentiment jb, maybe you gotta get outta your circles to feel it.  And part of it is, as you mentioned, that the laws only seem to apply to the unwashed masses.  People are sick of what passes for "law and order" and "equality under the law" round here.

    Parent
    Pop culture (none / 0) (#159)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:10:38 AM EST
    also is trying to do things like sell albums, so rebellion sells.

    Parent
    It sells because... (none / 0) (#160)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:22:25 AM EST
    it hits home.

    For another taste of the sentiment I'm talking about...check out what they are saying about the police on NY Jet fan blogs due to this.  

    Police are so despised that they even bring Jet and Charger fans together.

    Mad props to the Charger fans who stuck up for the guy...that's class.  

    Parent

    And, even more interesting.... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:22:18 AM EST
    does MA always have such a large turnout of voters who declare themselves Independents? Or, did they come out enmasse to make a statement that they have not returned to the party that shed them in 2008?

    Parent
    They seemed notably absent to me, eerily so ... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ellie on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:40:11 AM EST
    ... also in Dec, when the holiday downtime should have allowed greater participation. Not jumping the gun on my assumptions, as Mass is unfamiliar political ground to me.

    Parent
    A lot of the college kids (none / 0) (#149)
    by CST on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 09:16:19 AM EST
    are from out of town, especially in Boston.  They go home in December.

    Parent
    If they cared about the party (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 09:21:16 AM EST
    and platform, as we were led to believe in 2008, there's a little thing called "absnetee ballots"

    Parent
    Have you looked at the platform in action?... (none / 0) (#153)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 09:29:18 AM EST
    Money for banks, money for war, money for jails, no money for healthcare...what is there to like?  Why care for any party?

    Remember the vast majority of voters don't vote for anybody, they vote against somebody.  Politics makes most sane people sick.

    Parent

    talking about December (none / 0) (#155)
    by CST on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 09:34:45 AM EST
    Turnout was low everywhere in December, and it was a primary.  Maybe they just didn't know the difference between the candidates running.

    Also, I couldn't tell if that person just meant they didn't see as many college kids, if they were here.


    Parent

    Isn't that why there are exit polls? (none / 0) (#72)
    by EL seattle on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:32:27 PM EST
    ...To determine exactly who voted in the day's election, and why they voted the way they did.  

    Who was asking these questions in MA today?  And who wasn't?

    Parent

    In Mass. (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:16:33 PM EST
    there's only a small AA population and it's concentrated in just a small number of precincts, primarily in Boston.  AA turnout can be pretty accurately analyzed from the voter statistics, if somebody bothers to do it.

    Parent
    Mom calls: "I just turned on CNN" (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:24:32 PM EST
    Me: "I don't want to talk about it."

    Just turn on TCM (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by brodie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:45:49 PM EST
    in about half an hour.

    They're showing Sunset Boulevard.

    Holden!  Swanson!!  DeMille!!!

    Parent

    I think I have some saved Food Network (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:47:13 PM EST
    programming to watch.

    Parent
    Funny thing about this (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by standingup on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:24:41 PM EST
    Brown winning the election will make it even more difficult, if not impossible, for Democrats to get any work done.  Don't expect Republicans to suddenly have a change of heart or suddenly develop a conscience that will result in them voting to pass any legislation this year.

    So this is nice for those who think the Dems need a wake up call and a big FU to anyone hoping for any legislation to be passed.  

    they have methods which don't (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by observed on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:29:07 PM EST
    rely on beating the filibuster.

    Parent
    Not everything (none / 0) (#98)
    by standingup on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:56:38 PM EST
    can be passed through reconciliation.  You can bet the Republicans will be going over every bill with a fine tooth comb to catch anything Dems might try to slip into one.  I don't even want to think about what Republicans might ask for in a compromise to get something through.

    Parent
    Don't worry (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by mexboy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:39:37 PM EST
    Legislation will be passed.

    Obama will continue to give the Republicans whatever they ask for, you know, in the spirit of bipartisanship, and we'll continue to get screwed.

    I for one don't want just...

    any legislation to be passed.  
    I'd much rather have progressive legislation passed, but that wasn't going to happen under this administration anyway.

    This might actually force some Democrats to cater to the base and grow a spine.

    Parent

    Don't twist my words (none / 0) (#100)
    by standingup on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:01:21 PM EST
    I was not referring to just any legislation.  It might force the Dems to cater to the base but how will that move any of the progressive legislation you would like to see get passed?  

    Parent
    I wasn't trying to twist your words. (none / 0) (#127)
    by mexboy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:27:07 PM EST
    That is what I understood from your post.

    As far as it moving progressive legislation forward, it wasn't moving before, so this is a real opportunity for them to fight for it.

    Bush continued to get his agenda passed with a Democratic majority in Congress and the HOR in the last two years of his administration.

    It has been done before and it can be done again. If the Dems in power believe their jobs are on the line, they just might.

    Parent

    Do you think the Weiner/Nadler (none / 0) (#110)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:22:51 PM EST
    statement on health care bill is emblematic of what you are talking about?  Their statement, to the extent I understand it is, the Senate version of the bill cannot be passed unless other legislation is first passed fixing the problems in the Senate version.  I'm not sure I get it, but I think they are saying that they will not support the Senate version of the health care bill in its current form.

    Parent
    Obama and the "new Democrats" (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Spamlet on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:42:19 PM EST
    have actually managed to get plenty of work done, and the voters of Massachusetts don't like the work product. That's democracy.

    Parent
    Wake Up Call (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Bix12 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:31:44 PM EST
    Perhaps this will be the kick in the ass Obama needs to jar him into reality.

    Sure, we all want a lovey-dovey, bi-partisan, smooth running machine in D.C., but that's just never-neverland (especially in this day & age).

    The President needs to take off the gloves, and take a page or 2 out of the playbooks of some of his predecessors.

    Mr. President: you must pick up the phone, call your problem children, and put the fear of God in them! Just the way people like LBJ, the Kennedy brothers (Jack & Bobby), Teddy & Franklin Roosevelt, and yes, George W. Bush did it.

    You're the boss, and you need to start acting like one--and right now, the times dictate that knocking a few heads together is what's needed. Sure, you can be the "nice daddy", but only after you kick a little ass...make a few examples of these worms.

    Heed this wake-up call, Mr. President, heed it well--look upon this defeat as a gift, and use it to right the course.

    Govern through strength, not cookies & wistful sighs. Reward your friends, crush your enemies. Be feared, only then will you be respected.

    And simplify, simplify, simplify!

    Now, if we see that sort of change in our President over the next 12-18 months, 2012 will not be a problem.

    Excuse me, but (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Spamlet on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:48:46 PM EST
    who owes Obama anything? Obama spent most of his political life in the Illinois State Senate--not that there's anything wrong with that.

    But the inevitable consequence is that Obama owes his colleagues in the legislative branch--even and especially some of his "problem children"--far more than they will ever owe Obama. In fact, that is probably one of the reasons why so many of them supported his candidacy in the first place. He had little leverage with them to begin with, and now he has even less.

    Parent

    The Big Picture (none / 0) (#107)
    by Bix12 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:18:16 PM EST
    This isn't about anyone owing Obama--this is about what our representives owe the American people. Remember, no matter where he was prior to last Nov., he is our President now.

    He has some very good ideas...but he puts too much faith in others that they will automatically be on-board with those ideas. He needs to manage his criteria much better than he has been...by the time anything makes it to his desk, it is a watered-down disaster of what it should be.

    The election tonight is an indicator of that disconnect.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by Spamlet on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:53:45 PM EST
    He has some very good ideas...but he puts too much faith in others that they will automatically be on-board with those ideas...by the time anything makes it to his desk, it is a watered-down disaster of what it should be.

    Do you not understand that it was Obama who wanted the watered-down disaster that is the health care bill? Indeed, that the only people he fought were progressives, so he could have his POS legislation? That is why he has just been punished with the loss of the (putative) 60th vote in the Senate.

    Parent

    He doesn't have the chops for that. (3.50 / 2) (#121)
    by rennies on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:09:55 PM EST
    There is no evidence to date that Obama has the skills or courage for that kind of politics.

    Parent
    You see, I think he did crush his enemy (2.66 / 3) (#112)
    by mjames on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:33:32 PM EST
    Coakley was his enemy. She was for Clinton. Check out how Obama has treated the Clinton supporters. He punished Coakley. He denied her money - and, yes, he has all the money, which is why the Dems bow to whatever he says. He forced Coakley to support this damnable bill (or, rather, worship at his feet) in order to get some ads running. Had she defied him, no one would even know her name. By acceding to him, she lost the voters. An outright flip-flopper. Obama, novice know-nothing that he is, thought he could punish her and she would still win but be his.

    I think it's the only way. Vote each and every one of them out. Keep voting them out. Someone needs to take over running the government, because Obama is simply not up to the task, too many demons, too little preparation or hard work, not dedicated to anything really except his own ego. I think when it hits him how people will no longer blindly follow his lead it will not be a pretty sight. He'll put off that day as long as possible - blame Coakley, whatever - but that day will come.

    Parent

    Nonsense (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:19:14 PM EST
    I was strongly for Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Spamlet on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:55:03 AM EST
    but this is byzantine, paranoid silliness.

    Parent
    yes it is and I'm watching (none / 0) (#161)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 05:40:41 PM EST
    that poster to ensure s/he doesn't chatter.

    Parent
    I'm still not getting how this (none / 0) (#94)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:52:09 PM EST
    result in MA delivers that particular message.

    Parent
    You take that message (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Spamlet on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:57:09 PM EST
    from the electoral results in Massachusetts only by starting from the assumption that if anything went wrong over the past year, it's because people were being mean to Obama.

    Parent
    I'll spin tomorrow (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:34:58 PM EST


    None of you understand the real (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:48:36 PM EST
    lesson to be learned by Obama and the Demos.

    Never, never, never, never....

    Say a Senate seat belongs to anyone.

    And doubly never make fun of a pickup truck driver.

    ;-)


    I'm only gonna say this once Jim (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 06:51:22 AM EST
    You are absolutely right.

    Parent
    One add-on to that list... (none / 0) (#143)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 08:16:46 AM EST
    if you're in the prosecution business...don't throw the book at Joe Blow and let John Law skate.

    Parent
    My preliminary reflections (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:27:54 PM EST
    1.  The silver lining is this bottle of The Dimple Pinch sitting next to me.  It's three-quarters full, but it won't be for long!

    2.  I sure do feel lucky to have a decent job and health insurance.


    So is this (none / 0) (#7)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:44:57 PM EST
    what 11th dimensional chess gets us?  

    I'm going to point my finger at those people, because clearly saying whatever Obama wants to do is cool was not a great strategy/prophecy.

    Relax - It's just a head-fake. (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:15:46 PM EST
    You really don't get this 11-dimensional thing, do you?

    Best leave it to the experts.

    Parent

    Exactly: Chess is a game of inches (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:19:28 PM EST
    ... whether 1-dimension or 11.

    Parent
    Riiiight...who are they again? (none / 0) (#54)
    by oldpro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:20:50 PM EST
    How ya doin', Ron?

    Parent
    Whenever I'm feeling down ... (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:24:18 PM EST
    ... I just saddle up my pony and take 'er for a romp around the clouds.

    I'll just go out back and ... hey! ... Sparkle???  WHAT the F--K!!!

    Parent

    Heh. I'm reading "Nixonland" (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by oldpro on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:36:20 PM EST
    and reliving the 60s and 70s...not that the first time wasn't enough.

    Parent
    Okay all back to the TeeVee (none / 0) (#29)
    by SOS on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:07:57 PM EST
    May as well become full fledged vegetables at this point.

    Exit poll question: to what extent, if (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:21:53 PM EST
    any, was your vote influenced by the fact Scott Brown's daughter was on American Idol?

    Parent
    There were no exit polls (none / 0) (#83)
    by itscookin on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:41:06 PM EST
    in this election. The Dems thought they were unnecessary.

    Parent
    Let's be fair (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:42:13 PM EST
    Media outlets pay for exit polls, and NO ONE thought they would be necessary.

    Parent
    no as I live in California (none / 0) (#129)
    by someTV on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:43:34 PM EST
    but I did edit and put together the entire season five Boston City audition show and now I remember her and the home story and the national anthem at a football game I believe...and now I'm scratching my brain with vague memories of the inside of their house and dad brown throwing a football and her catching it...

    Parent
    My one hope for 2010 (none / 0) (#51)
    by kenosharick on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:19:47 PM EST
    was the fact that Dems had so much more cash than repubs. I imagine they will have no trouble raising cash after tonight.

    Has Michael Steele made a public (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:22:47 PM EST
    pronouncement yet?

    "Yahooooooo!" (none / 0) (#60)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:23:52 PM EST
    We can only hope (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:25:09 PM EST
    It would be the one bright spot for Dems this evening.

    Parent
    It means nothing, (none / 0) (#102)
    by brodie on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 10:03:29 PM EST
    just my mind wandering on a very weird night, but I just realized that Scott Brown most closely resembles, in facial features and voice, one Rep. Bob Wexler (D-FL).

    WTF? (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:20:12 PM EST
    He looks eerily like a clone of Mitt Romney to me.

    Parent
    Politically, yes, as I noted (none / 0) (#147)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 08:49:30 AM EST
    on this site several days ago.

    But in several of the physical aspects, it's separation at birth with Rep Wexler ...

    Parent

    No, I mean physically (none / 0) (#157)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 09:38:10 AM EST
    and his style.  And I see that several of the Mass. commenters here agree, so it's not just me!

    Parent
    When you tell voters you want them in jail (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:09:43 PM EST
    they won't vote for you. Coakley actively crusaded against the 2008 Marijuana decrim initiative, and publicly sought ways to circumvent it after it passed with 65% of the vote.

    And she had NO Myspace presence at all. There is, however, a "Martha Coakley: Too Immoral for Teddy Kennedy's Seat" group, about the Arsenault case.


    Amirault (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 12:19:10 AM EST
    There is, however, a "Martha Coakley: Too Immoral for Teddy Kennedy's Seat" group, about the Arsenault case.

    And, if nothing else, at least this will no longer be referred to as "Teddy Kennedy's seat". John Kerry took that seat...it was the Senior Senator position that Teddy held.


    Parent

    Who wants to run against Coakley for AG? (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:50:14 PM EST
    Easy win, since we know she hates to actually campaign.

    Parent
    Here's the answer: (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:15:26 PM EST
    low turnout in some places (none / 0) (#154)
    by CST on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 09:31:26 AM EST
    <40% in working class cities like Springfield, Lawrence, New Bedford, Lynn, Fall River and Lowell.

    Also <40 in Holyoke (college town) Gosnold and Southbridge (never heard of them...)

    To me it seems like the Dems lost the working class, union, and minority vote.  Other college towns (Cambridge, Northampton, Sunderland, Hadley, etc...) did okay, but working class cities were low across the board.