Why did Brown win?

[eagleseven]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjpTFpH9FFM&]YouTube - Frank Luntz Focus Group Explains the Election Results![/ame]

 

[elvis]

because he got more votes than Coakley.

 

[eagleseven]

because he got more votes than Coakley.

 

[Oddball]

Marsha sucked as a candidate...Thought it was in the bag.

That attitude is only but slightly less appealing than the candidate who wants it too much.

 

[elvis]

Marsha sucked as a candidate...Thought it was in the bag.

That attitude is only but slightly less appealing than the candidate who wants it too much.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yZHveWFvqM]YouTube - Marcia, Marcia, Marcia[/ame]

 

[Xenophon]

Luntz groups always remind me of school trips with slow kids.

 

[LuckyDan]

I wonder if this could have happened in a general election. I mean, if Teddy had retired, named and campaigned for his successor, I doubt this would have happened.

Coakley was a poor candidate, but the WH and the DNC took that seat for granted and didn't seem to catch on until Rasmussen, of all people, woke them a few weeks ago. Even then, they probably thought all BO had to do was show up to save her. That they did not see this coming is a political embarrassment.

Add to that, Romney's advisors (I assume the same team that forced Teddy off his butt to actually campaign in '94) who obviously know how to win in Mass, were on loan to Brown.

A special election, a poor candidate, an apathetic party leader whose numbers are in decline, an unpopular legislative agenda...and watch BO just keep on driving this train right over the cliff.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

A political campaign is a job interview. You want someone to protect and further your interests and listen to your needs and take care that you are protected.

Brown made the voter believe that he would listen and promote the interests of the people of MA. Cokesly obviously wasn't interested in anyone but the party leadership and the big donors. She was out of touch with the people, and seemed not to like them much.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Why did Brown win?

America rejects progressives just as they reject neo-cons.

 

[Chris]

Coakley was a poor candidate.

Plus, she never posed nude like Brown did.

That got a lot of votes from the ladies.

 

[Scotty]

Brown won because the Independents are trending right.

 

[uscitizen]

Brown is not a Neocon?

Time will tell.

 

[California Girl]

Marsha sucked as a candidate...Thought it was in the bag.

That attitude is only but slightly less appealing than the candidate who wants it too much.

Well, it was Kennedy's seat, wasn't it?



Oops, apparently not. Apparently those tricky bastards - "we, the People" - own that seat... along with many others, and some very nice property on Penn Ave.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Brown is not a Neocon?

Time will tell.

Actually since a NEOCON is a left of center Republican he probably more closely fills that bill then the ones you keep claiming are.

 

[chanel]

Does it mean the "tea bagging" jokes will stop?

 

[uscitizen]

Does it mean the "tea bagging" jokes will stop?

Why would that happen?

 

[California Girl]

Does it mean the "tea bagging" jokes will stop?

Look at it this way.... better to be a TEAbagger than a progressive. TEAbaggers fought for this country, progressives tried to destroy it.

 

[froggy]

It was man against woman.

 

[Sarah G]

I wonder if this could have happened in a general election. I mean, if Teddy had retired, named and campaigned for his successor, I doubt this would have happened.

Coakley was a poor candidate, but the WH and the DNC took that seat for granted and didn't seem to catch on until Rasmussen, of all people, woke them a few weeks ago. Even then, they probably thought all BO had to do was show up to save her. That they did not see this coming is a political embarrassment.

Add to that, Romney's advisors (I assume the same team that forced Teddy off his butt to actually campaign in '94) who obviously know how to win in Mass, were on loan to Brown.

A special election, a poor candidate, an apathetic party leader whose numbers are in decline, an unpopular legislative agenda...and watch BO just keep on driving this train right over the cliff.

Ok. I'm sure the president uses Rasmussen as a credible advisor to just about everything he does.. Obamas numbers have hovered right around 50% for months now, he is not in decline.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

Your theories are faulty except that Martha was a poor candidate and Democrats in Mass beat themselves. They lost a seat that was held by a Liberal Democrat for 47 years. Big mistake but not anything that will destroy them if they begin to look at things more objectively.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I wonder if this could have happened in a general election. I mean, if Teddy had retired, named and campaigned for his successor, I doubt this would have happened.

Coakley was a poor candidate, but the WH and the DNC took that seat for granted and didn't seem to catch on until Rasmussen, of all people, woke them a few weeks ago. Even then, they probably thought all BO had to do was show up to save her. That they did not see this coming is a political embarrassment.

Add to that, Romney's advisors (I assume the same team that forced Teddy off his butt to actually campaign in '94) who obviously know how to win in Mass, were on loan to Brown.

A special election, a poor candidate, an apathetic party leader whose numbers are in decline, an unpopular legislative agenda...and watch BO just keep on driving this train right over the cliff.

Ok. I'm sure the president uses Rasmussen as a credible advisor to just about everything he does.. Obamas numbers have hovered right around 50% for months now, he is not in decline.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

Your theories are faulty except that Martha was a poor candidate and Democrats in Mass beat themselves. They lost a seat that was held by a Liberal Democrat for 47 years. Big mistake but not anything that will destroy them if they begin to look at things more objectively.

Except your Liberals have already proven they can not and will not look at it objectively. They will make excuses and continue the same train wreck they started in January of last Year. Watch, the leadership will INSIST on pushing ahead with Health Care even though most of the people in this Country are DEAD SET AGAINST what the bills involved do. And have said it for MONTHS now. You and your buddies have argued on this board for the current ignorant bills in Congress as well, have YOU learned anything? Nope not with this post you haven't. You think it was just a bad campaign?