Is Coakley the blue Palin?

[Breadburner]

Coakley's campaign coming unhinged:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/19/coakleys_office_throws_out_reporter.html

Lol...Sore loser's......

[FOTD]

Coakley's campaign coming unhinged:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/19/coakleys_office_throws_out_reporter.html

Ever been to Boston?


Coakley's main problem is that enough progressives are appalled by bad government that they just want to send a message.

[guido911]

Okay, this is just too damned funny. Pollster Frank Luntz can't find Coakley supporters for his focus group panel.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/19/pollster-frank-luntz-having-difficulting-finding-coakley-supporters-for-focus-group-on-the-eve-of-massachusetts-senate-race/

The problem isn't money. "They're getting paid well," Luntz says, "probably more than they're making at their jobs. And they still don't want to do it." Instead, says Luntz, they're ashamed. "They don't want to be on television defending Martha Coakley. It's passé. It's socially unacceptable. I never dreamed I'd see Democrats in Massachusetts embarrassed to admit they're Democrats."

[guido911]

The inevitable Hitler video:

[Conan71]

Coakley was a flawed candidate, but once the implications of what this race meant to the Senate health care bill (otherwise referred to as the "pile") the tide turned seriously in Brown's favor.  I notice this site is unusually quiet this morning in regards to the liberals who usually lurk and post here.  There was a spirited debate on one member's Facebook page last night essentially denying this was any sort of referendum and that it all fell on Coakley being a terrible candidate.  This is what liberal and conservative pundits (I've watched most of the election coverage on MSNBC, approximately 90% of it if I had to guess, including watching Scarborough this morning) are referring to as a "circular firing squad" regarding liberal Dims not taking seriously the underlying reasons for Brown surging late in the race.

I seriously hope that most liberals are too arrogant to understand this went much deeper than Coakley being a poor choice to replace Senator Kennedy (she was a poor choice, don't get me wrong).  The electorate will show them the door in November if they are unwilling to take a more moderate approach to healthcare and get more concerned about more pressing issues like unemployment, soaring deficits, wasteful spending, and bilking the American voter and taxpayer much quicker than a Bernie Madoff wet dream.

Some telling stats were passed around post election.  President Obama's approval rating is dropping.  People are upset after a year and there still no substantive results toward economic problems, health care, and other issues promised in the 2008 campaigns at all levels.  People are becoming upset that the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress are still blaming the Bush administration for this economic quagmire.  It's their problem now, they own it and what they are doing and have done isn't producing results as quickly as the voting public would like.  It doesn't matter that it's only been a year since the Obama administration began.  For someone who has been unemployed for even six months, that seems like an eternity.  Sure, expecting to return to 5% or less unemployment in a year's time is unrealistic.  But that doesn't matter to people losing their home and with still no hope of finding a job.

Incumbents are losing credibility with voters and I suspect we will see a turn-over at mid-term much like there was in 1982 and 1994.  President Obama still remains popular, but approval of his policies is slipping.  I suspect at this point he can still be re-elected in '12, but he will have to send a more moderate message to do it.  His charm and charisma as well as his oratorial skills will have worn thin by that time.

I believe his team has mistakenly believed that he was elected primarily for his approach to policy.  I've held all along that he was elected for his charisma, oratoral skills, and somewhat due to his race, and a much lesser extent his liberal policies.  The Obama administration needs to wake up and see this as somewhat of a referendum by voters that:  Healthcare is not our #1 priority, people are starting to realize things like transparency in legislation never materialized, lobbyists and special interests still have the seats at the table that they have occupied all along, voters don't want a large invasive government, voters don't want massive deficits brought by needless spending and vote-buying, Gitmo is still no closer to being closed as promised and more troops are on their way to Afghanistan.  The ridiculous way that accounting for jobs saved or created by the "stimulus" was done and has now been discarded to pretty much remove any possible way to quantify this number has severely dented his administration's credibility. 

President Obama does not shoulder this burden alone.  I think every single incumbent up for re-election this year is vulnerable.  Don't be surprised if some more incumbents decide to "retire" rather than face a humiliating defeat.  I think Specter and Reid amongst others are in deep trouble right now.

[Breadburner]

The crickets have been chirping quite loudly in this thread......

[Gaspar]

Crickets? Yes.  No one is saying anything surprising.  Nothing to refute. 

An increasing populist is moving towards more conservative, and dare I say, libertarian views as a result of the current administration.  Everyone knows it. . . yet it has been downplayed in the media and ignored by Washington.

Teabaggers are branded as a small group of radical fringe, and the 73% of the country that is not in support of the health bill is ignored as just random noise.

Someone predicted a year ago that this administration would be the best thing to happen to the Republican  party since Regan.   Many, myself included, abandon the party two administrations ago because Republicans began to resemble Democrats in their push to grow government.

Now we are being forced to swallow what we do not want to eat, and the backlash will be beyond anything Washington is willing to recognize.

There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. – Robert Heinlein   

[RecycleMichael]

There was a spirited debate on one member's Facebook page last night essentially denying this was any sort of referendum and that it all fell on Coakley being a terrible candidate.  -

Facebook debates aren't to be taken seriously...people who post politics as their status are idiots...

[Hoss]

Facebook debates aren't to be taken seriously...people who post politics as their status are idiots...

Haha, then I know at least two idiots in my friends list...I had a one of them posting MA senator race updates last night in their facebook status.

He lives in Houston.

[sgrizzle]

Facebook debates aren't to be taken seriously...people who post politics as their status are idiots...

[Conan71]

Facebook debates aren't to be taken seriously...people who post politics as their status are idiots...

Love it RM!

[FOTD]

CoCo....a two year stint for someone more liberal than that dim Coakley, not to be confused with Copley, is not bad. Many of us progressives are thrilled to see the health care strategy forced into a new realm (whatever it takes, could be an end around based on reconciliation or a cram down with 51 Senate votes). This may be the excuse necessary for moving forward with the single payer public option.  If some kind of bill can be passed now to establish as foothold, can a series of reconciliation bills then be enacted...... bills that deal with funding, such as paying for the reform by taxing the rich, or for that matter expanding Medicare to cover everyone? These are economically viable and so should qualify under reconciliation rules.

Do you think the Mass dems wanted this woman in office for several terms? Not a chance. Watch for a Kennedy insider in two years to oust this stripper man.

Guido, the Hitler boil plate youtube shenanigans are tired.....

[Conan71]

I don't want Medicaid or Medicare and I should not be forced onto such a system simply because there are people in this country who don't have what I have in the way of health insurance.  Why bust me down for something which is no fault of my own?  I have no problem making sure everyone has health care available to them (as they already do, including our less than legal visitors) I fail to see what the mind-set is for there always needing to be some sort of parity which limits my choices or artificially confiscates my liberty.  My current health plan serves me well and negotiates lower cost health care for me.  It's hardly one of the "Cadillac" plans people are talking about but I'm happy with it and it's a nice employer-provided bennie that they should not be punished for providing.

Put out a poll which asks: "Do you support health care reform?"  Naturally, you will get a resounding yes.  Now faced with what the government's idea of reform is and the sleazy way it's trying to be rammed through (doing it for the sake of saying: "We passed health care reform and kept our promise"), the majority don't want it.  It sucks.

The heads were talking today that the next strategy may be to break this down into multiple, smaller bills.

Congress still doesn't get it.

[FOTD]

Sleazy?

FOTD does not recall you calling it that when it only took 51 republicans to move government as opposed to today's requirement of 60 dems.

Interesting.

[Conan71]

Sleazy?

FOTD does not recall you calling it that when it only took 51 republicans to move government as opposed to today's requirement of 60 dems.

Interesting.

Sleazy, as in rubbing grease all over it for Madame Landrieu, and Ben Nelson and back-room sell-outs which were not near as well publicized, you know, funding bridges and new vehicles through a health care bill and making sure all the lobbyist and special interest concerns were taken care of.