Don't See What's Wrong with Coakley's Campaign

[SwingVoter]

The current Dem spin for every losing candidate is he/she's "running a bad campaign". Saying it about Coakley, they said here in Virginia about Creigh Deeds, but they also said it in 1993 about Mary Sue Terry, who lost the governor's race that year.

Just as they missed the bigger point in 1994, the Dems are missing it again in 2010. It's not about "bad campaigns", but that most of the country just doesn't want the health care bill and the big government agenda, and the Dems just can't seem to get over that fact.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I think the problem is internal to the soul of them. They feel the only reasons you can disagree with them are because you are dishonest or stupid. As far as they are concerned, smart folks are democrats. Any intelligent Republicans are criminals.

Since, for them, their policy is right, QED, then any time they loose it is not because of the policy, but because the person explaining the policy did a bad job.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Her campaign is not the problem...she's the problem. The Dem's hung their hat on a questionable candidate who is weak against the Republican challenging her.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I think the problem is the message, not the messenger.

 

[jillian]

The current Dem spin for every losing candidate is he/she's "running a bad campaign". Saying it about Coakley, they said here in Virginia about Creigh Deeds, but they also said it in 1993 about Mary Sue Terry, who lost the governor's race that year.

Just as they missed the bigger point in 1994, the Dems are missing it again in 2010. It's not about "bad campaigns", but that most of the country just doesn't want the health care bill and the big government agenda, and the Dems just can't seem to get over that fact.

well, first off, there's huge anti-incumbant feeling right now on both sides

mostly, she shouldn't have taken the seat for granted. and her first two campaign ads had to be pulled...the first b/c the DNC spelled Masachusetts incorrectly... for real.

oh..and obama has a 57% approval rating in Massachusetts and they're for health care reform by 52%

 

[Navy1960]

Coakley, is a weak candidate first of all, and given the political climate she just assumed for a long time that it was pretty much a given she was the annointed candidate for Senate. The election was just a mere formality and that has come across to a LOT of voters or appears to in MA. Look at the following as of just last week Brown had 50 something statewide since the campaign started and Coakley had 19, Brown had 5 statewide offices, and Coakley had 2. This when Coakley up until this past week from a finanacial standpoint had much more money that Brown did. Now, top that off with the sheer number of gaffes she has had on the trial its a combination of both. If she is elected it will not be because she is a qualified candidate for the job thats for sure.

 

[MaggieMae]

The current Dem spin for every losing candidate is he/she's "running a bad campaign". Saying it about Coakley, they said here in Virginia about Creigh Deeds, but they also said it in 1993 about Mary Sue Terry, who lost the governor's race that year.

Just as they missed the bigger point in 1994, the Dems are missing it again in 2010. It's not about "bad campaigns", but that most of the country just doesn't want the health care bill and the big government agenda, and the Dems just can't seem to get over that fact.

Oddly? The reason the Republicans lost in 06 and BIGGER in 08 was because most of the country was sick of its agenda. And that's why nothing will get back on track until middle ground is found on all of the major issues. I'm actually getting anxious to see what Republicans will do to "fix things" since they weren't capable before.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is funny. Somewhere else earlier today I predicted that if Brown wins, which will be ONLY because Coakley is a shit candidate, the right was going to do everything they could to deny that.

thanks!!

 

[MaggieMae]

The current Dem spin for every losing candidate is he/she's "running a bad campaign". Saying it about Coakley, they said here in Virginia about Creigh Deeds, but they also said it in 1993 about Mary Sue Terry, who lost the governor's race that year.

Just as they missed the bigger point in 1994, the Dems are missing it again in 2010. It's not about "bad campaigns", but that most of the country just doesn't want the health care bill and the big government agenda, and the Dems just can't seem to get over that fact.

well, first off, there's huge anti-incumbant feeling right now on both sides

mostly, she shouldn't have taken the seat for granted. and her first two campaign ads had to be pulled...the first b/c the DNC spelled Masachusetts incorrectly... for real.

The DNC also erred in assuming the seat was theirs, when in reality they should have GUARANTEED it would be theirs because they need that 60th vote. Where oh where is Howard Dean when you need him?

 

[SwingVoter]

oh..and obama has a 57% approval rating in Massachusetts and they're for health care reform by 52%

36-51 against health care per this morning's Boston Globe

country didn't want Hillarycare, and it doesn't want Obamacare, Dems overplayed their hand in 93, did it again in 09

yeah, Bush was incompetent, but shifting the discussion to Republicans doesn't change the fact that the Dems have repeated the mistake of trying to impose an unpopular agenda

 

[Zander]

This is funny. Somewhere else earlier today I predicted that if Brown wins, which will be ONLY because Coakley is a shit candidate, the right was going to do everything they could to deny that.

thanks!!

Coakley won her AG seat with 70+% of the vote, so to say she is a "shit candidate" is inane. Coakley is VERY popular in Massachusetts. This election is a referendum on OBAMA and his far left agenda.

 

[Maple]

The current Dem spin for every losing candidate is he/she's "running a bad campaign". Saying it about Coakley, they said here in Virginia about Creigh Deeds, but they also said it in 1993 about Mary Sue Terry, who lost the governor's race that year.

Just as they missed the bigger point in 1994, the Dems are missing it again in 2010. It's not about "bad campaigns", but that most of the country just doesn't want the health care bill and the big government agenda, and the Dems just can't seem to get over that fact.

Thank You,You said it all.

 

[jillian]

oh..and obama has a 57% approval rating in Massachusetts and they're for health care reform by 52%

36-51 against health care per this morning's Boston Globe

country didn't want Hillarycare, and it doesn't want Obamacare, Dems overplayed their hand in 93, did it again in 09

yeah, Bush was incompetent, but shifting the discussion to Republicans doesn't change the fact that the Dems have repeated the mistake of trying to impose an unpopular agenda

and the insurance companies paid a lot of money to make sure they had people like you believing exactly what they want you to believe.

i've seen other poll numbers on heath care.

btw, there ISN'T any such thing as "obamacare". the term is goofy and telegraphs that you can't discuss the issue objectively.

 

[manifold]

Hey, don't be innaugurating Brown just yet.


Afterall, we ARE talking about Massachusetts.

 

[Big Black Dog]

The Dems will never admit that they simply got beat if they loose. There will be some lame excuse. Anything but nobody wanted to elect a Democrat.

 

[manifold]

Coakley won her AG seat with 70+% of the vote, so to say she is a "shit candidate" is inane. Coakley is VERY popular in Massachusetts. This election is a referendum on OBAMA and his far left agenda.

That's exactly why I'm going to vote for Brown.

If the democrats cannot win the approval of even ONE republican for a particular healthcare reform bill, then it's the wrong bill.

 

[Navy1960]

Coakley won her AG seat with 70+% of the vote, so to say she is a "shit candidate" is inane. Coakley is VERY popular in Massachusetts. This election is a referendum on OBAMA and his far left agenda.

That's exactly why I'm going to vote for Brown.

If the democrats cannot win the approval of even ONE republican for a particular healthcare reform bill, then it's the wrong bill.

manifold as you are obviously in that part of the world, as you are voting for Brown. Do you think the presence of President Obama will serve to enforce the reasons why people are voting the way they are there or help Coakley?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The stink coming out of the reconciliation process means they may loose some more Democrats along the way.

Democrats who had issues with the bill but voted for it have already signaled that the reserve the right to vote against it later. And Ben Nelson already has shown a great deal of buyer's remorse because the deal he got made the folks of Nebraska mad at him.

 

[manifold]

Coakley won her AG seat with 70+% of the vote, so to say she is a "shit candidate" is inane. Coakley is VERY popular in Massachusetts. This election is a referendum on OBAMA and his far left agenda.

That's exactly why I'm going to vote for Brown.

If the democrats cannot win the approval of even ONE republican for a particular healthcare reform bill, then it's the wrong bill.

manifold as you are obviously in that part of the world, as you are voting for Brown. Do you think the presence of President Obama will serve to enforce the reasons why people are voting the way they are there or help Coakley?

That's a good question. I honestly can't say whether it helps her, hurts her or makes no difference. I know it makes no difference to me. What makes the difference for me is filibuster proof majorities. I don't like'm for either party.

 

[Navy1960]

That's exactly why I'm going to vote for Brown.

If the democrats cannot win the approval of even ONE republican for a particular healthcare reform bill, then it's the wrong bill.

manifold as you are obviously in that part of the world, as you are voting for Brown. Do you think the presence of President Obama will serve to enforce the reasons why people are voting the way they are there or help Coakley?

That's a good question. I honestly can't say whether it helps her, hurts her or makes no difference. I know it makes no difference to me. What makes the difference for me is filibuster proof majorities. I don't like'm for either party.

I sort of get the impression that his presence is not really going to make much of a difference at this point on the final outcome.