I think Martha Coakley's losing Ted Kennedy's Senate seat is more about a disengaged candidate than national trends.
I've never heard of a candidate, in a short campaign, take a vacation, as Coakley apparently did. Voters will dismiss a dismissive candidate.
That said, Democrats, again, and again, have to refine their message, be true progressives and lead the country out of the recession.
I agree that Coakley lost because of candidate effects.
ReplyDeleteThe Dems will surely have a midterm slump, as almost all other incumbent parties have experienced during midterm elections in the past 60 years.
Early models predict between 30-40 Dem House seats lost, based on a presidential approval rating below 50% and economic factors.
Still, I think you have it totally right... this national trend has nothing to do with the MA loss. Bad candidate is all.
Hey James - denial is not a river in Egypt.
ReplyDeleteThis election turned on the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, culminating in the Senate Xmas Eve vote for the Health Care Takeover bill.
The outcome was then was solidified with the subsequent and blatant "transparency /CSPAN" lie and payoff to the Unions regarding their exemption to the Cadillac tax
It is heartwarming to see you, Russ Feingold, Madame Pelosi, Dingy Harry, and the White House haven't gotten the message yet.
Please, please keep on your path - it will guarantee you losing control both houses of congress in 10 months in spectacular manner.
What happened in Mass. was purely local. Mass. already has health care provided for 98% of it's population. Scott Brown helped it get passed in the state senate and Mitt Romney signed it into law. Mass. voters are mostly Independents followed by Dems then Rep. They voted to keep what they had for health care. Lets see if soon to be Sen. Brown will work across party lines as he has or is forced too submission by the neo-conservative power structure that still dominates the GOP.
ReplyDelete