Why did Coakley lose?
 

When the state has a three to one Democrat advantage over Republicans.

Was it...

Because she ran a poor campaign?

Because Mass has a health care program already and is better than the proposed House and Senate bills?

Because the people of Mass wanted to give the Republicans filibuster power in the Senate?

Because it is a referendum against President Obama's spending/nationalized health care/foreign policy?

I think there are a few different reasons. First, by all reports she ran a bad campaign and pretty much ignored her opponent until it was too late. Second, I think the people of Mass have a health care system in place and they see how it works and those that don't like it wanted to make sure that they were able to stop the national health care bill. Third, I think some people were just annoyed with the democrats and decided to send a message.

This isn't doomsday for the democrats, but it surly got their attention and now they have to decide what they want to do with this.

She probably thought it was a done deal for her...Ted held the office for a ridiculously long time and she probably figured people in honor of him would have voted democrat regardless of who was running. Just like a sports team sitting on a large lead and letting the other team come back and get into the game - never underestimate your opponent. Obama probably wants to glock her at this point - he's pretty much staked his whole presidency on this bill at this point and she just fucked it all up. Maybe now he can focus on the important things like rampant foreclosures, ridiculously high unemployment, airport/airline security, etc. Why this stupid bill has been his top priority amidst the rest of this mess is still beyond me and the moment he started into this was the moment I knew he was a shitty president. Bush sucked majorly too - I don't show favortism to any side at this point. Politicians have to start earning our respect and our vote.

It is my understanding that the majority of the people in Mass like their health care program and about a third do not...and those that like it view the House and Senate bill as being a worse bill with things in it that would adversely affect their current health care program. Is my understanding wrong?

People are tired of the partisan politics on both sides.

STOP SPENDING.

IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!

WORK TO CREATE JOBS!

The whole mass in Washington only think of their own pocketbooks. Mass corruption, kickbacks, lobbyists is just the tip of the iceberg.

Monstrous fuckin' mess ... and, above all, they don't listed to the people. 60%+ of the population want the healthcare bill tossed in the shit can. Pelosi, Reid, Frank and Obama just don't listen. They think they KNOW what you need. I can think for myself ... simple as that.

peace :2 cents: :thumbsup

There was talk of heavy anti-incumbent sentiment. In this case, anyone but a Democrat. Mid-term elections will really tell the tale. In CT we get to choose a new Senator. With Dodd gone I can finally take the "DUMP DODD" bumper sticker off of my garbage cans.

Honestly I have no idea how many people in Mass like or dislike the health care. From what I understand it is pretty good so I can see how those who like it would want to keep it and not see the senate bill pass.

She was on vacation from December 15 to January 5 which left 14 days for her to actually campaign. Additionally, she said some pretty stupid shit about Catholics.

everyone who blames her will be proven wrong as you will start seeing republicans in all states winning in the next election

people simply want nothing to do with obama and his ideas, he overpromised and people feel betrayed, leave the "would of mccain been better question to your grandma, thats not the point".

This....

I don't know how to feel about it. its not like replacing democrats with republicans is going to solve any problems. You got one party that wants to tax & spend us to death, the other party wants a darwinian form of capitalism where only the rich do well.

Actually is probably will solve problems
In recent history the government works best with a balance, not with what we had
The Dems were in control and they just sat there and got nothing done but talk about what they could get for themselves
The GOP stood together

As some of these guys said, this country tends to work better when there is a balance. Whether the balance is between the house and the Senate, or the President and the House/Senate, is irrelevant. You're not going to get anything done with one party in the high positions, whether you're a Democrat or Republican.

i don't remember the last time the 2 parties tried to work together. Maybe for 18 months after 911, the dems rolled with anything bush wanted. & Bush senior passed some tax increases in 90. Other than that, things doing well when there is balance is merely serendipity. Mostly nothing gets done except expanding the size & power of the government.

She lost because she thought the seat was hers and that came off as arrogance. She figured she just had to be there and would be given the seat. It was ted Kennedy's seat, a Democrat's seat and she is a Democrat.

By the time she and her campaign realized that people had turned against her there was not enough time left for her to fix the damage and it may have been irreparable. People see her as a typical politician and they do not want that.

It was not so much that people believe in Scott Brown as much as they do not believe in Martha Coakley. Brown was on point with the issues and the concerns of his constituency but if he does not deliver for them you can bet he will be out in 3 years at the next election.

theres plenty of blame, but mostly i blame obama for letting reid & pelosi run the agenda in washington, & they fucked it up so badly the independants are swinging back to the right.

Anymore input?

Because she's a DEMOTARD....btw..I thought YOU said she would not win...LMFAO

If Obama was smart he would kick Pelosi-Reid to the curb and start working with moderates in both parties almost exclusively. Also he should fire Rahm Emmanuel who is actually pulling the strings on policy making at the White House right now.

The USA is a "moderate" country, always has been and probably always will be. Change comes slowly here, and it has been the reason for our success.

Obama could still win another term if he shifts to the center AND focuses on the economy. Those two things would make him a great President. If he does anything else besides those two things he is one-termer and a wishy washy one at that.

The key phrase here is " If obama was smart"

They are all the same your kidding yourself if you think differently. GOP doesnt spend you mean like the unfunded 500 billion dollar drug benefit? They dont give a shit about anyone both parties unless you give large donations. Deregulation got us into this mess and a good chunk of jobs going overseas that are never coming back. Even if you made it zero corporate tax, you cant hire a degreed professional in the us for under $1000 a month, off shore you can do that all day long.

they worked together after 96 when the GOP ran the senate and the house and had clinton in there, that was balance, they got a lot done
Time before that was Reagan, didn't matter who ran the house and senate, because Reagan pretty much just got stuff done

He has been playing to the center thats why people are pissed. He is not liberal that a myth created by right wing pundits. If he was liberal, gays would be in the military,we would be out the middle east,a straight answer on gay marriage,bankers would be in jail, it would be medicare for everyone and a 2 trillion dollar bail out, oh and cheney would be on trial. He is gop lite and a huge disappointment to many. On the dailykoz I said the dems have no spine and I said we are going to lose big time and I was called a right wing plant.They are going to lose it all and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Two words...

TERM LIMITS!

Then maybe politicians will give a shit about the people they supposedly serve, as opposed to their own next elections, and which corp interests will fund them.

And the largest tax increases during peacetime were during Reagan. Go figure and the people loved him.

I agree everyone 8 yrs and your out and you cant have anything to do with government once your time is up.

:thumbsup Sounds about right to me! :thumbsup

I think it's cause they went way to far with the bashing. Every ad she ran was trashing Brown. I think people got fed up with it and started seeing her true colors. Having Obama endorse her I think hurt her as-well. Since it showed who would be pulling the strings.
Brown may fuck everyone but his campaign was wholesome and guy next door.

I read something earlier that sums it up perfectly..

The manner of Brown's victory proves that the result isn't just a product of the two party monopoly see-sawing back and forth. Voters who are sick to the back teeth of government taking their liberties whether a Democrat or a Republican is in office are now slowly becoming the majority. The partisan sideshow of Democrat versus Republican is gradually starting to implode as Democrats and liberal Independents quickly wake up to the fact that Obama?s promises of hope and change were completely hollow and that the man is little more than another stooge for the military-industrial complex in the same vein as Bush.

Brown's victory cannot be spun as anything other than a victory for self-governance and a complete rejection of the Obama administration?s nanny state agenda.

What taxes are you talking about? I remember my paycheck going up because of the tax cuts!
I was working on high rise construction and the difference was huge

here u go
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0310290853.asp
Not a lib publication

The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.

Much of this is why when Bush Sr ran one of his campaign promises was "Read my lips, no new taxes!" Of course he lied, but that is to be expected.

No, he IS liberal and he does TOO Much to try and appease everybody, that's why it's unclear where this country is headed with him. The guy doesn't even know who he is.

See to me Obama is carrying out much of what he promised during his campaign.

He said he would close gitmo. He is working on that. It still may not happen, but it is starting to happen.

He said he would work to get a health car bill. It is in progress, but may have died last night with Browns win.

He said he would pull us out of Iraq and refocus on Afghanistan. He is doing just that.

He said he would spend a ton of money on a stimulus plan. He did that.

He said he would raise taxes on the rich to pay for all of this. While some of this hasn't happened yet, it is in the works.

Sure, he has fallen short on many of his promises, one of the main ones being transparency, but he has started to deliver on what he said he would and he is still in his first year. It almost seems to me like a lot of people weren't listening to him when he ran. Also, I think expectations for him were/are so high that when things didn't change within a few months of his getting in office people already started feeling let down.

Yeah he made a bunch of promises a year ago, had full control of the house and senate and got nothing done.
Wonder what he can get done now?

I remember a lot of those taxes being used on the Star Wars stuff, of course we will never know how much, but that was what took down the USSR and ended the cold war. I was part of that in the middle of the indian ocean and I'm glad thats over

If I never hear the words "republican" or "democrat" again, it would be too soon. Imagine what would happen if people couldn't use party line bullshit and instead had to run on their own merits. It is indeed possible for people to have their own thoughts and opinions that don't adhere to some amorphous, yet viciously defended set of ideals. Shocking but true!

What I was pointing out is that he has actually gotten some stuff done. Many people are complaining that it is not what they wanted done, but it is exactly what he said he would do. It just seems to me that there are a group of people who ordered a Pepsi, got a Pepsi and now are pissed off that they have a Pepsi.

Either way, he will have to change his game plan now that there is no longer a filibuster proof senate.

Oh yes, because things would be so much different without party lines! I mean the fact that most people have a set of ideals that follow a certain party, is clearly lost on you.

The fact the neither parties follow their own "party lines" or their own "ideals" is also lost on you. :2 cents: