MA Senate Special Election Game Thread

[UNHWildCats]

Coakley about to concede. Gotta love it!

I hope Obama stumps for EVERY Democrat up for re-election in 2010, as he did for Coakley!

the final result was closer than polls late last week... so Obama may have helped her a bit. Obama wasnt the issue here, the dems nominee was.

[Baldy]

I hope Obama stumps for EVERY Democrat up for re-election in 2010, as he did for Coakley!

the final result was closer than polls late last week... so Obama may have helped her a bit. Obama wasnt the issue here, the dems nominee was.

Sorry, UNH. This was a referendum on Obama. If you think otherwise, you're just fooling yourself.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Do you suppose Ted is rolling over in his grave right now?

I hope hes burning in hell.

[SeattleGriz]

Liberalism is dead.

I most certainly hope the Dems figure out how to make America happy.

[putter]

Ted is looking to drive off another bridge tonight....

[Wildcat Ryan]

Way to go Massachusetts, this is big.

Hey Obama, Pelosi, Harry Ried, see what happens when you dont listen to the American people?

WE DONT WANT IT, STOP TRYING TO SHOVE IT DOWN OUR THROUGHTS

[mainejeff]

Republicans will save us!

*yawn*

[Col Hogan]

I hope Obama stumps for EVERY Democrat up for re-election in 2010, as he did for Coakley!

the final result was closer than polls late last week... so Obama may have helped her a bit. Obama wasnt the issue here, the dems nominee was.

If you truly believe it was the candidate, and not referendum on Obamacare, here's a song you can hum all the way to the looney bin...

[kalm]

Oh the exuberance!

Obama, the wealth redistributing, soft on terror, weak on defense, socialized medicine advocate has chosen to place the banks and shareholders ahead of jobs, place banking reform on the back burner, increase the use of predator drone attacks on terrorists, escalate the war in Af-Pac, drop single payer and a public option and now favor the continuation of corporatized healthcare. And this is a referendum on liberlism or Obama?

You Republicans crack me up. You criticize him for breaking campaign promises and condemn is ideology while he has for the most part moved to the center and attempted to placate the right.

That's the reason Brown won, and it's nothing really all that new. American voters want everything but are througoughly confused as to which party best represents them. So when one candidate runs a really crappy campaign or one of the parties is proven to be ineffective at passing legislation, they are left with only one other option. That's why Bush was so politically successful, popular opinion be damned and stay the course, and his party showed great solidarity.

On the other hand, as Will Rogers pointed out, "I don't belong to any organized political party...I'm a Democrat."

This will be a very interesting year. You might see a signifcant rift in the Democratic Party between the corporatist Rahm Emmanuel types who will attempt to maintain power through the status quo and big contributors, and the progressive/populist types who are calling bull shit on it all and see a real need for change (see Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul on the Fed).

I actually think Brown's victory is an overall good thing for the country in that it might signal a continued unhappy electorate and a need to return to a populist agenda.

[YoUDeeMan]

I hope Obama stumps for EVERY Democrat up for re-election in 2010, as he did for Coakley!

the final result was closer than polls late last week... so Obama may have helped her a bit. Obama wasnt the issue here, the dems nominee was.

Denial...a beautiful thing to watch from the outside.

Strap 'em up, you'll actually have to work for a living.

[YoUDeeMan]

Oh the exuberance!

Obama, the wealth redistributing, soft on terror, weak on defense, socialized medicine advocate has chosen to place the banks and shareholders ahead of jobs, place banking reform on the back burner, increase the use of predator drone attacks on terrorists, escalate the war in Af-Pac, drop single payer and a public option and now favor the continuation of corporatized healthcare. And this is a referendum on liberlism or Obama?

You Republicans crack me up. You criticize him for breaking campaign promises and condemn is ideology while he has for the most part moved to the center and attempted to placate the right.

That's the reason Brown won, and it's nothing really all that new. American voters want everything but are througoughly confused as to which party best represents them. So when one candidate runs a really crappy campaign or one of the parties is proven to be ineffective at passing legislation, they are left with only one other option. That's why Bush was so politically successful, popular opinion be damned and stay the course, and his party showed great solidarity.

On the other hand, as Will Rogers pointed out, "I don't belong to any organized political party...I'm a Democrat."

This will be a very interesting year. You might see a signifcant rift in the Democratic Party between the corporatist Rahm Emmanuel types who will attempt to maintain power through the status quo and big contributors, and the progressive/populist types who are calling bull **** on it all and see a real need for change (see Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul on the Fed).

I actually think Brown's victory is an overall good thing for the country in that it might signal a continued unhappy electorate and a need to return to a populist agenda.

You didn't bother to read the quotes from the exit polls (from many different news sources), did you?

Don't kid yourself...or anyone else. Obama hasn't tried to move to the center because that is where his views on America reside. He has publicly expressed his frustration many times that he can't get to his agenda quickly enough because of stubborn, old school (read that as white middle class folks who are satisfied with the status quo), middle America. He repeatedly tells his followers that is it a long road and that they need to make baby steps, but he certainly wants to move in a very left direction with the hope of eventually getting far more left than where we are now....even if it takes a lifetime. He didn't give up willingly on his healthcare wants...you are too smart to fall for that, aren't you? If the Dems won in Mass (or gained more seats in the next elections), you'd have seen Obama saying he has a mandate and he would continue to push his original agenda even more. Only the public outcry against his policies (and the failure of Mass. health care) has slowed him down.

The Mass. (ironic abreviation) voters spoke very clearly last night. But, of course, you know better than they what was on their minds.

[kalm]

Oh the exuberance!

Obama, the wealth redistributing, soft on terror, weak on defense, socialized medicine advocate has chosen to place the banks and shareholders ahead of jobs, place banking reform on the back burner, increase the use of predator drone attacks on terrorists, escalate the war in Af-Pac, drop single payer and a public option and now favor the continuation of corporatized healthcare. And this is a referendum on liberlism or Obama?

You Republicans crack me up. You criticize him for breaking campaign promises and condemn is ideology while he has for the most part moved to the center and attempted to placate the right.

That's the reason Brown won, and it's nothing really all that new. American voters want everything but are througoughly confused as to which party best represents them. So when one candidate runs a really crappy campaign or one of the parties is proven to be ineffective at passing legislation, they are left with only one other option. That's why Bush was so politically successful, popular opinion be damned and stay the course, and his party showed great solidarity.

On the other hand, as Will Rogers pointed out, "I don't belong to any organized political party...I'm a Democrat."

This will be a very interesting year. You might see a signifcant rift in the Democratic Party between the corporatist Rahm Emmanuel types who will attempt to maintain power through the status quo and big contributors, and the progressive/populist types who are calling bull **** on it all and see a real need for change (see Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul on the Fed).

I actually think Brown's victory is an overall good thing for the country in that it might signal a continued unhappy electorate and a need to return to a populist agenda.

You didn't bother to read the quotes from the exit polls (from many different news sources), did you?

Don't kid yourself...or anyone else. Obama hasn't tried to move to the center because that is where his views on America reside. He has publicly expressed his frustration many times that he can't get to his agenda quickly enough because of stubborn, old school (read that as white middle class folks who are satisfied with the status quo), middle America. He repeatedly tells his followers that is it a long road and that they need to make baby steps, but he certainly wants to move in a very left direction with the hope of eventually getting far more left than where we are now....even if it takes a lifetime. He didn't give up willingly on his healthcare wants...you are too smart to fall for that, aren't you? If the Dems won in Mass (or gained more seats in the next elections), you'd have seen Obama saying he has a mandate and he would continue to push his original agenda even more. Only the public outcry against his policies (and the failure of Mass. health care) has slowed him down.

The Mass. (ironic abreviation) voters spoke very clearly last night. But, of course, you know better than they what was on their minds.

Well, at least 5 out of 10 did.

[YoUDeeMan]

You didn't bother to read the quotes from the exit polls (from many different news sources), did you?

Don't kid yourself...or anyone else. Obama hasn't tried to move to the center because that is where his views on America reside. He has publicly expressed his frustration many times that he can't get to his agenda quickly enough because of stubborn, old school (read that as white middle class folks who are satisfied with the status quo), middle America. He repeatedly tells his followers that is it a long road and that they need to make baby steps, but he certainly wants to move in a very left direction with the hope of eventually getting far more left than where we are now....even if it takes a lifetime. He didn't give up willingly on his healthcare wants...you are too smart to fall for that, aren't you? If the Dems won in Mass (or gained more seats in the next elections), you'd have seen Obama saying he has a mandate and he would continue to push his original agenda even more. Only the public outcry against his policies (and the failure of Mass. health care) has slowed him down.

The Mass. (ironic abreviation) voters spoke very clearly last night. But, of course, you know better than they what was on their minds.

Well, at least 5 out of 10 did.

Gosh, what a coincidence...winning a majority is...well...winning. News Flash!

[YoUDeeMan]

God I love when I quote myself.

[Appaholic]

the final result was closer than polls late last week... so Obama may have helped her a bit. Obama wasnt the issue here, the dems nominee was.

Sorry, UNH. This was a referendum on Obama. If you think otherwise, you're just fooling yourself.

Disagree to a point....this was more a referendum on Washington Incumbents much like the 2008 election...I'd like to think people in this country are getting as pissed off as myself with the quality of leadership choices....We gave the Republicans 8 years to fok up, then turned them out riding a wave of "Change". Now, the citizens are still wanting change, but the previous agents are now the power structure that risks being turned to pasture...

[kalm]

Sorry, UNH. This was a referendum on Obama. If you think otherwise, you're just fooling yourself.

Disagree to a point....this was more a referendum on Washington Incumbents much like the 2008 election...I'd like to think people in this country are getting as pissed off as myself with the quality of leadership choices....We gave the Republicans 8 years to fok up, then turned them out riding a wave of "Change". Now, the citizens are still wanting change, but the previous agents are now the power structure that risks being turned to pasture...

[free7694]

I hope Obama stumps for EVERY Democrat up for re-election in 2010, as he did for Coakley!

the final result was closer than polls late last week... so Obama may have helped her a bit. Obama wasnt the issue here, the dems nominee was.

Let's do some math:

Scott Brown got over 1.1 million votes yesterday, but there are only about 500,000 Republicans are registered in Massachusetts. If this was really about Coakley being a bad candidate, as you and many liberals say, wouldn't many of the 600,000 or so Independents and Democrats that voted for Brown simply have stayed home?

If it was truly a case of Coakley's lackluster candidacy, we would have seen a low turnout to the polls and she still probably would have won. But that wasn't the case, there was another element working against her, and that element was the unpopular agenda of Barack Obama.

[FargoBison]

Why isn't this about Obama...look at all the broken promises...

No Earmarks...His first bill had over 9,000 earmarks

Obama: No earmarks for 2009 - CNN.com


No tax benefits on health care...His current bill does just that.

Obama: McCain Wants to Tax Your Health Insurance | Politicususa.com


No forcing people to buy health care(Was Clinton's Health Care reform idea)...Current bill does just that.

Once Opposed to 'Forcing' Americans to Get Health Insurance, President Obama Now Says His Thinking Has 'Evolved' - Political Punch


Transparency...CSPAN of all organizations is calling him out on this.

Open Government Directive: Obama Moves On Transparency Promise

Lobbyists/Special Interests...
"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

Obama picks lobbyist as Pentagon No. 2 - White House- msnbc.com

Then he cuts a deal with big Pharma....

Obama gives powerful drug lobby a seat at healthcare table - Los Angeles Times

Spending
"No doubt we have been living beyond our means and need to make adjustment"
That is what Obama said during the campaign and promised spending cuts...In his first year spending increased 2 trillion, more than any year in history.

[youtube][/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOZpJ4rSITo

[CID1990]

All good points, but personally I don't think Obama has moved to the center. I don't think he has moved anywhere. That's his problem. One perception is that he has no control over his own party. He cannot unite or at least placate all of the different factions within the Democratic Party, and his own bully pulpit has been co-opted by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

I really think that Obama is what many of us feared he would be- weak and inexperienced. He has outsourced almost his whole agenda to a Congress that has a lower approval rating than GWB did in his worst days. Conventional wisdom was that his agenda would be one that united the Democrats in Congress, and that union would necessarily mean a centrist approach to things like healthcare. In reality, his lack of control has led to internecine warfare within the Democratic ranks in Congress, and the far left fringe of that body is actually holding up reconciliation because they cannot get the most pervasive (and scary) parts of the bill passed.

I think that if Obama was perceived as being stronger and more able to direct his troops, then he would not be having these problems. The election in Massachusetts was certainly about Obama, but not necessarily over his agenda. It was because he has no control over his agenda that has caused this backlash.

[blueballs]

I had a blast last night watching the election coverage.

At the Blueballs household election nights are pure entertainment as I switch, at every commercial, back and forth from Fox News Channel to MSNBC. In other words I'll watch Fox until a commercial comes up, then switch to MSNBC, then watch MSNBC until a commercial comes up, then switch back. During the 9pm hour we were treated to the "holy trinity" of Hannity on Fox and Olbermann and Matthews (in a bar of all places) on MSNBC. The s--t was flowing deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep on both sides of the aisle.

Pure entertainment and perhaps the best line of the night was delivered by Chris Matthews on the Rachel Maddow (truly a face made for radio) Show shortly before 9pm which suggested that the Obama administration and the democrats were getting smacked last night was because they weren't liberal enough.

Around 10:20 we were teated to this gem from Olbermann, "I wanted to apologize for calling Senator-elect Scott Brown an "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea bagging, supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees." I’m sorry, I left out the word "sexist."

Good stuff...

[mainejeff]

Republican recipe for America:

1. Defeat Democrats.
2. Wallow in victory.
3. Claim God is on their side.
4. ?
5. ?
6. ?
7. etc.
8. etc.

...........*yawn*

[UNHWildCats]

Why isn't this about Obama...look at all the broken promises...

No Earmarks...His first bill had over 9,000 earmarks

Obama: No earmarks for 2009 - CNN.com


No tax benefits on health care...His current bill does just that.

Obama: McCain Wants to Tax Your Health Insurance | Politicususa.com


No forcing people to buy health care(Was Clinton's Health Care reform idea)...Current bill does just that.

Once Opposed to 'Forcing' Americans to Get Health Insurance, President Obama Now Says His Thinking Has 'Evolved' - Political Punch


Transparency...CSPAN of all organizations is calling him out on this.

Open Government Directive: Obama Moves On Transparency Promise

Lobbyists/Special Interests...
"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

Obama picks lobbyist as Pentagon No. 2 - White House- msnbc.com

Then he cuts a deal with big Pharma....

Obama gives powerful drug lobby a seat at healthcare table - Los Angeles Times

Spending
"No doubt we have been living beyond our means and need to make adjustment"
That is what Obama said during the campaign and promised spending cuts...In his first year spending increased 2 trillion, more than any year in history.

[youtube][/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOZpJ4rSITo

Obama surely played a role in last nights defeat, but he wasn't the main reason democrats lost.

[AZGrizFan]

Republican recipe for America:

1. Defeat Democrats.
2. Wallow in victory.
3. Claim God is on their side.
4. ?
5. ?
6. ?
7. etc.
8. etc.

...........*yawn*

Looks eerily similar to the Donk mantra.

[GannonFan]

I had a blast last night watching the election coverage.

At the Blueballs household election nights are pure entertainment as I switch, at every commercial, back and forth from Fox News Channel to MSNBC. In other words I'll watch Fox until a commercial comes up, then switch to MSNBC, then watch MSNBC until a commercial comes up, then switch back. During the 9pm hour we were treated to the "holy trinity" of Hannity on Fox and Olbermann and Matthews (in a bar of all places) on MSNBC. The s--t was flowing deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep on both sides of the aisle.

Pure entertainment and perhaps the best line of the night was delivered by Chris Matthews on the Rachel Maddow (truly a face made for radio) Show shortly before 9pm which suggested that the Obama administration and the democrats were getting smacked last night was because they weren't liberal enough.

Around 10:20 we were teated to this gem from Olbermann, "I wanted to apologize for calling Senator-elect Scott Brown an "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea bagging, supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees." I’m sorry, I left out the word "sexist."

Good stuff...

Goodness sakes, I'm glad someone else saw that excuse for news on both sides of the aisle. I flipped to both for a lark because I wanted to hear some talk about the election, and not being a frequent viewer of either I was actually stunned at the amount of just flat out un-objective talk and reporting. I mean, I feel that the likes of CNN and ABC are starting to get too opinionated in the news they cover, but they are light years more objective than the yahoos on Fox and MSNBC.

[CID1990]

I had a blast last night watching the election coverage.

At the Blueballs household election nights are pure entertainment as I switch, at every commercial, back and forth from Fox News Channel to MSNBC. In other words I'll watch Fox until a commercial comes up, then switch to MSNBC, then watch MSNBC until a commercial comes up, then switch back. During the 9pm hour we were treated to the "holy trinity" of Hannity on Fox and Olbermann and Matthews (in a bar of all places) on MSNBC. The s--t was flowing deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep on both sides of the aisle.

Pure entertainment and perhaps the best line of the night was delivered by Chris Matthews on the Rachel Maddow (truly a face made for radio) Show shortly before 9pm which suggested that the Obama administration and the democrats were getting smacked last night was because they weren't liberal enough.

Around 10:20 we were teated to this gem from Olbermann, "I wanted to apologize for calling Senator-elect Scott Brown an "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea bagging, supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees." I’m sorry, I left out the word "sexist."

Good stuff...

Goodness sakes, I'm glad someone else saw that excuse for news on both sides of the aisle. I flipped to both for a lark because I wanted to hear some talk about the election, and not being a frequent viewer of either I was actually stunned at the amount of just flat out un-objective talk and reporting. I mean, I feel that the likes of CNN and ABC are starting to get too opinionated in the news they cover, but they are light years more objective than the yahoos on Fox and MSNBC.

I mostly watched CNN for the returns. It was... interesting. Wolf Blitzer did not seem as alarmed as I would have expected, but the "On the Scene Broad/Babe".... I don't know her name but she had red hair and big titties. She said that things were not looking good for Coakley prior to the pollls closing, and then told folks that they still had time to get out to the polls. She literally sounded like she was pleading.

Later on, Larry King sounded genuinely dejected, asking all of his guests "How will we get the healthcare bill passed now?"

It is difficult to find a news agency that is not carrying water for one side or the other.