Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(471)
-
▼
January
(61)
- A Serious Man
- $5 pitchers of gin 'n tonic=
- crate diggin'
- run dmt
- edan - new shit finally
- my greatest youtube find ever? you make the call
- WTF?
- Obama Plans for a Spending Freeze
- Thank God
- shake weight
- You make the call!
- i'm not sure how to beat a talking lab but....
- Barbara doesn't beat around the bush.
- If I Had a Hammer...
- Sleigh Rides With Miller Light
- Corporations are people and buying politicians is ...
- There's More...Pabst off to David Lynch
- Pabst off to Swayze
- Pabst off to ya! Pt. II
- Pabst off to ya!
- You make the call!
- Carp-e Diem
- old man fight
- A centrist, weak Obama means:
- Watch Blue Velvet
- horny vampyre
- jersey shore
- hecuba
- not your boyfriend's hipster band
- Gravy Barks Back
- Hot Jam
- i had to post this...
- welp, i'm drunk again...
- u.b.h.l.
- yeah buddy
- jay reatard pt. 4
- rush.
- pat robertson eats newborns.
- the real DC GRAVY?
- reda
- marty the liaison.
- Garnett Voted Worst Trash Talker
- jay reatard pt. III
- jay reatard part II
- Jay Reatard Dies in His Sleep
- First Canine Blogger on Record!
- Tell us how you really buddy.
- Glenn Beck Gets Massive Erection...
- you mama's on crack rock
- Scratch Wild Style
- scorpio rising
- Walking
- Now we know the only thing better than a forwards ...
- open up your throat
- The power of nightmares
- 0.6 Seconds...
- Another sign the singularity is Real
- Remember Songsmith?
- DOJ - ya blew it
- Considering your career options?
- funny NH security guard
-
▼
January
(61)
The YIKYB Family
For Your Health
-
-
-
THOUGHT I WAS GONE???11 years ago
-
-
The WSJ Law Blog: 2006-20177 years ago
Contributors
# of faces melted
7 comments:
if the massachusetts electorate wanted policies further to the left and was dissatisfied with obama's supposed centrism, then they would've voted in coakley (especially since that seat is so crucial to this health care bill). but that wasn't the case: the electorate is tired of liberal policies running our state into the ground, and want more centrism. had democrats like myself not voted for brown, coakley would've won. plain and simple.
i think the bigger issue is coakley wasn't the greatest candidate. to claim that she was "far left" promoting "liberal policies" is just a regurgitation of media bullshit. brown was just a smooth talker.
and explain to me what overall effect a national senator has on the state he/she represents. in my opinion not much.
if Obama had stood up to wall street and had been fighting for a meaningful health care bill (not a weaker version of the "universal system" mass. already has), voters would certainly be more likely to vote democratic.
but i also agree with Nick; Coakley was just an awful candidate.
hjc -- saying that coakley lost because the massachusetts electorate is tired of failed liberal policies isn't media bullshit, but common sense. if anything the spin is now that coakley "was a bad candidate". people in this state vote just as much for party as they do the candidate, so it goes far beyond coakley into how fed up people are in this state. if people (democrats especially) thought these leftist policies worked and should be applied at the federal or national level, then coakley would've surely won just based on her party affiliation.
jf -- i really just don't think you get it: it wasn't a case of obama being too moderate, but too liberal (and there is without question a correlation between this senate outcome and the attitudes of mass residents towards the obama administration). massachusetts has already tried milder variations of these liberal experiments, so if democratic constituents were remotely happy with the results, they would've given the democratic party, regardless of candidate, ammunition to enact them on a national level.
to suggest that democrats are lashing out against their party because leaders compromised on a universal health care plan misses the point: the policies just don't bleeping work, and even though i've voted democratic all my life, today's democrats are a whole new breed.
"it wasn't a case of obama being too moderate, but too liberal (and there is without question a correlation between this senate outcome and the attitudes of mass residents towards the obama administration)."
You couldn't be more wrong.
" A survey yesterday of pro-Obama voters in Massachusetts who didn't support Democrat Martha Coakley (either they stayed home, or they voted for Scott Brown) say their disenchantment has much to do with the fact that Democrats haven't done enough to challenge Republican policies of the Bush years.
They were asked, "do you think Democrats in Washington, DC are fighting hard enough to challenge the Republican policies of the Bush years, aren't fighting hard enough to change those policies, or are fighting about right?"
A plurality, 39 percent, said "not enough," 25 percent said "about right," while only 12 percent believe Democrats have been too ambitious."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/poll-anti-coakley-obama-voters-say-dems-arent-doing-enough.php
otnemem -- if this democratic electorate was so disenchanted with republican policies (which is really the crux of the matter, according to your surveys: people are tired of democrats not changing republican policies and ideas) then why the heck would they vote in another republican? just doesn't make any sense.
like i said before: most people outside of the center vote party. it's not like these liberals stew on the candidates' positions and decide accordingly: their minds are usually made up before the race begins (especially in massachusetts)....unless something else happened: people have seen these leftist experiments in practice and want them to end.
Post a Comment