toldailytopic: Democrats lose a senate seat in the hot-bed of liberalism. What does i

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 20th, 2010 08:47 AM

toldailytopic: Democrats lose a senate seat in the hot-bed of liberalism. What does it mean?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Democrats seek back footing after epic Mass. loss

BOSTON – Republicans are rejoicing and Democrats reeling in the wake of Scott Brown's stunning victory over Martha Coakley in a special Massachusetts Senate election that Brown insists was not simply a referendum on President Barack Obama.

Still, Obama grimly faced a need to both regroup and recoup losses on Wednesday, the anniversary of his inauguration, in a White House shaken by the realization of what a difference a year made. The most likely starting place was finding a way to save the much-criticized health care overhaul he's been trying to push through Congress.

In one of the country's most traditionally liberal states, Brown rode a wave of voter anger to defeat Coakley, the attorney general who had been considered a surefire winner until just days ago. Her loss signaled big political problems for Obama and the Democratic Party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.

Brown, however, maintained in an interview Wednesday morning that claiming the election was a referendum on Obama would be oversimplifying what had happened there. Nor, he said, was it merely a matter of voters rejecting Coakley.

Asked on NBC's "Today" show if the election was a referendum on Obama, he replied, "No, it's bigger than that."

FULL STORY

 

[Granite]

They nominated a lousy candidate who ran an inept campaign. Coakley paid for her arrogance. She didn't really campaign much at all, assuming that she'd simply coast to victory by dint of being the Democratic nominee. That hubris combined with her many missteps created a perfect opening for an upset. I don't see this as a major referendum on Obama, as much as I see Mass votes responding poorly to an out-of-touch candidate who didn't work for it.

And yes, even Massachusetts voters are angry about the economy, displeased with Obama, and not comfortable with nationalized health care. Backlash against all this combined with Coakley's sense of entitlement gives you the upset. A loss like this is really inexcusable: it's Teddy's seat, people! And the Democrats have just created a monster in their own lion's den: a telegenic, confident, articulate Republican who has six years to burnish his credentials and become a serious contender come 2016, a presidential election year.

For sheer entertainment, this whole debacle can't be beat.

 

[Alate_One]

And the Democrats have just created a monster in their own lion's den: a telegenic, confident, articulate Republican who has six years to burnish his credentials and become a serious contender come 2016, a presidential election year.

I think it would be a stretch for him and if you watched his speech which dragged on and on and on, it had that Sarah Palin quality of "not being ready for prime time".

Anyway otherwise you pretty much captured it, Granite. I would have been angered as a voter if a party took me for granted the way the Coakley campaign did. Plus of course the moronic things she said. And of course the fact that

I don't think its necessarily a repudiation of healthcare, Mass residents already have near universal coverage. Many of the polls suggest that the current healtchare bill is not Democratic enough! I think its a reflection of a general frustration with Washington which hasn't been working to most people's desires. I think the Dems will get a healthcare bill through one way or the other.

 

[Granite]

I think it would be a stretch for him and if you watched his speech which dragged on and on and on, it had that Sarah Palin quality of "not being ready for prime time".

Anyway otherwise you pretty much captured it, Granite. I would have been angered as a voter if a party took me for granted the way the Coakley campaign did. Plus of course the moronic things she said. And of course the fact that

I don't think its necessarily a repudiation of healthcare, Mass residents already have near universal coverage. Many of the polls suggest that the current healtchare bill is not Democratic enough! I think its a reflection of a general frustration with Washington which hasn't been working to most people's desires. I think the Dems will get a healthcare bill through one way or the other.

I dunno; we've already seen one single-term US senator go all the way. Just speculating, of course, but I suspect Brown's election will have some real interesting short- and long-term ramifications. He's the guy who bagged Kennedy's seat--he can go a ways with that on his resume, at least within the GOP.

 

[bybee]

A point

A point

They nominated a lousy candidate who ran an inept campaign. Coakley paid for her arrogance. She didn't really campaign much at all, assuming that she'd simply coast to victory by dint of being the Democratic nominee. That hubris combined with her many missteps created a perfect opening for an upset. I don't see this as a major referendum on Obama, as much as I see Mass votes responding poorly to an out-of-touch candidate who didn't work for it.

And yes, even Massachusetts voters are angry about the economy, displeased with Obama, and not comfortable with nationalized health care. Backlash against all this combined with Coakley's sense of entitlement gives you the upset. A loss like this is really inexcusable: it's Teddy's seat, people! And the Democrats have just created a monster in their own lion's den: a telegenic, confident, articulate Republican who has six years to burnish his credentials and become a serious contender come 2016, a presidential election year.

For sheer entertainment, this whole debacle can't be beat.

It is not "Teddy's" seat. The seat belongs to the people of Massachusetts. But, boy oh boy do I ever agree with you. Finally, a republican who could grow and mature into presidential material! And he is no more a monster than Barak Husein Obama is a monster. Hmmmmm. Maybe I must cogitate on this some more. peace, bybee

 

[Granite]

It is not "Teddy's" seat. The seat belongs to the people of Massachusetts. But, boy oh boy do I ever agree with you. Finally, a republican who could grow and mature into presidential material! And he is no more a monster than Barak Husein Obama is a monster. Hmmmmm. Maybe I must cogitate on this some more. peace, bybee

Yes, yes, and of course Brown probably sealed his victory by correctly characterizing it as such. Be that as it may, the popular perception was that this was "Kennedy's Seat," as everybody knows. He nailed the question during the debate, though.

Ahhh. Politics. The most expensive reality TV on the planet.

 

[bybee]

Today

Today

Yes, yes, and of course Brown probably sealed his victory by correctly characterizing it as such. Be that as it may, the popular perception was that this was "Kennedy's Seat," as everybody knows. He nailed the question during the debate, though.

Ahhh. Politics. The most expensive reality TV on the planet.

You know Granite, today, Americans are evincing an almost morbid fascination with things political. It is stunning to watch the chameleons change their color right before our very eyes! bybee

 

[Town Heretic]

toldailytopic: Democrats lose a senate seat in the hot-bed of liberalism. What does it mean?

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think it means the Republicans picked up a seat...from Massachusetts. Ballpark. lain:

 

[chrysostom]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think it means the Republicans picked up a seat...from Massachusetts. Ballpark. lain:

that is just too obvious
what isn't
is that it is just another missed opportunity for a third party candidate

 

[chrysostom]

I dunno; we've already seen one single-term US senator go all the way. Just speculating, of course, but I suspect Brown's election will have some real interesting short- and long-term ramifications. He's the guy who bagged Kennedy's seat--he can go a ways with that on his resume, at least within the GOP.

he will have to run for president
because
he doesn't have a chance of being re-elected

 

[Granite]

You know Granite, today, Americans are evincing an almost morbid fascination with things political. It is stunning to watch the chameleons change their color right before our very eyes! bybee

David Icke would agree with you!
















:noid:

 

[Town Heretic]

that is just too obvious

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

what isn't
is that it is just another missed opportunity for a third party candidate

Tells me that people's opinions and convictions have been replaced by sound bite friendly, transient whims. Of course if that's the case I'll likely feel completely different about that in a minute or so...lain:

PS--are you trying for a haiku style of answering or is your server messing with you? oly:

 

[TomO]

They nominated a lousy candidate who ran an inept campaign. Coakley paid for her arrogance. She didn't really campaign much at all, assuming that she'd simply coast to victory by dint of being the Democratic nominee. That hubris combined with her many missteps created a perfect opening for an upset. I don't see this as a major referendum on Obama, as much as I see Mass votes responding poorly to an out-of-touch candidate who didn't work for it.

And yes, even Massachusetts voters are angry about the economy, displeased with Obama, and not comfortable with nationalized health care. Backlash against all this combined with Coakley's sense of entitlement gives you the upset. A loss like this is really inexcusable: it's Teddy's seat, people! And the Democrats have just created a monster in their own lion's den: a telegenic, confident, articulate Republican who has six years to burnish his credentials and become a serious contender come 2016, a presidential election year.

For sheer entertainment, this whole debacle can't be beat.

^^^^^^
This X2 lain:

 

[penofareadywriter]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 20th, 2010 08:47 AM

toldailytopic: Democrats lose a senate seat in the hot-bed of liberalism. What does it mean?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

I think it means that God is not done with America yet.....:guitar::banana:

 

[bybee]

Haiku

Haiku

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

Tells me that people's opinions and convictions have been replaced by sound bite friendly, transient whims. Of course if that's the case I'll likely feel completely different about that in a minute or so...lain:

PS--are you trying for a haiku style of answering or is your server messing with you? oly:

Haiku is; putting it tersely; pithy thought! I love Haiku! bybee

 

[Lighthouse]

It means Mass. finally realized Republicans are liberals too.

 

[greatdivide46]

ORIGINAL: Granite

A loss like this is really inexcusable: it's Teddy's seat, people! And the Democrats have just created a monster in their own lion's den: a telegenic, confident, articulate Republican who has six years to burnish his credentials and become a serious contender come 2016, a presidential election year.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken Brown was elected to serve out the remainder of Kennedy's term, which means he'll be up for re-election in two years, not six.

 

[Granite]

Actually, if I'm not mistaken Brown was elected to serve out the remainder of Kennedy's term, which means he'll be up for re-election in two years, not six.

Ah, good catch. Well in that case the Dems may only have to seethe for another two years--of course depending on how far south the president's numbers dip Mr. Brown might be sitting pretty for a long time.

People are willing to vote for any kind of perceived "change," these days. Of course that could get dangerous real, real fast.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

That the democrats represent actual liberalism in the same way that the republicans represent actual conservatism.