Was it Coakley or Obama & the Dems fault?

[kyzr]

I was watching Chris Matthews to see how the left was going to spin the apparent loss of Ted Kennedy's senate seat. It looks like the dems are throwing Coakley under the bus, "it was entirely her fault for running such a horrible campaign."
I don't think so. It seems to me that if the dems had a popular regime that the voters would keep it going. Since the voters have apparently chosen Scott Brown over Coakley, on top of the VA and NJ governorships, it looks like the dems have lost their mojo.

Please vote on the question "was it Coakley's fault for a bad campaign, or was it the dems' fault for pushing unpopular policies"

 

[Avatar4321]

Cant it be both?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The rightwing myth is going to be that this is all about an Obama referendum, and a Democrat agenda referendum.

The right has a myth for everything when the truth doesn't suit them.

 

[kyzr]

Yes, I put both, but not "equally both". It should be more Coakley or more Obama/Pelosi/Reid. It seems that if NJ & VA went to the dems, and just Coakley lost, that would point more to her, but since the voters in BLUE-BLUE states are voting for the GOP over the dem, it seems that the voters are REALLY pissed-off at the dems.

 

[del]

The rightwing myth is going to be that this is all about an Obama referendum, and a Democrat agenda referendum.

The right has a myth for everything when the truth doesn't suit them.

coakley ran a terrible campaign, but it was partially a referendum on obama, the economy and the health care bill. i think there was a fairly substantial portion of the populace that was voting against the health care bill, but coakley acted as though she'd been anointed rather than nominated.

having said that, scott brown ran an excellent campaign and was nowhere near as negative as coakley was. he's a bright guy and i think if he wins, and i believe he'll win big, he could be an excellent senator.

we'll see.

 

[LuckyDan]

Obama is the party leader. If he didn't see this coming, his instincts are not what they should be.

My guess, tho, is that the WH is so bent of pushing HC thru, they've chosen to take a calculated risk. They know it is unpopular, but they are willing to sacrifice a few seats if need be. If they get HC, they will consider this loss worthwhile.

 

[kyzr]

I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but UHC is DEAD. There will not be enough dems to form a circular firing squad. Congressmen get re-elected this year, no one is going to be stupid enough to vote for UHC with the voters ready to throw them out.