[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Political colors (click to view)
Date: January 22, 2010
The Senate seat of the late Ted Kennedy is now held by a Republican. In a major upset this week Massachusetts state senator Scott Brown beat out Democratic attorney general Martha Croakley to return Kennedy's seat to the GOP for the first time since 1953.

How did he pull it off? It's hard to say. Massachusetts is an extraordinarily left-wing state, so it's hard to argue — as the Republican mainstream is presently doing — that Republicans are simply more popular than ever right now due to President Obama's various bungled big-government initiatives on things like healthcare and the environment. Liberal people don't generally see these things as bad unto themselves, and it's hard to believe the unknown Scott Brown simply convinced the Massachusetts electorate to turn conservative overnight, so there are clearly some bigger factors at play here.

Some of the more measured analyses of the race, in my opinion, have focused on the fact that Ms. Croakley was a uniquely awful candidate (she spelled "Massachusetts" wrong in one of her ads, for example) and the reality that Mr. Brown is much more moderate than his red state cheerleaders want to acknowledge. Many, on both sides, have also been quick to characterize Brown's election as a vague "protest vote" against the Washington status quo, which, due to the limits of the American party system, can often entail supporting a candidate you would not otherwise have much to do with.

But what do you think? Post your armchair quarterbacking in the forum through the link below.

[martin14]

A lady I study Italian with is a self described 'New York Socialist'

When, with a big grin on my face, I told her that New York was
next on the list, she almost screamed at me.


People reminding the politicians not to take them for granted
with shitty campaigns by arrogant candidates.


One piece of info I am missing is how much Obama
was helping / hurting the campaign. ?

[CanadianJeff]

Honestly I think this may have been a case where party actually was not a determining factor in the vote nearly as much.

Crazy I know but hear me out. Think about your local elections for city council. Do people in those instances really vote along political lines? I think locally people tend to vote more on the individual then politics.

I think that may be the case here. What if Brown convinced people that this election had more to do with their local centre then the political scene.

Brown turned down almost every big shooting republican to have more local stars promoting his campain. Rather then Palin or Joe or the plumber he got far more local people pushing for him.

In the meantime we had Croakley pulling out more of the national faces to back her up. That followed by her more national issues commercials and a few blunders may have really pegged her as just another big wig.

If Brown managed to convince most people he was more about the state then the nation people may have found it much easier to connect with him.

At least that's my theory. I think there's always a local/national bend to most elections and that it does play a big role. That's just me though.

[EyeBrock]

I think everybody who isn't a died-in-the-wool partisan for a particular party votes on personality Jeff.

I was pretty dissapointed that Iggy turned out to be such a dud. I'm not exactly a huge fan of Harper's 'engaging' manner either.

I would be quite willing to vote in another direction than Tory if somebody charismatic and looked half decent came along.

[Psudo]

martin14 wrote:

When, with a big grin on my face, I told her that New York was
next on the list, she almost screamed at me.

Man, where's a camera when you need one!?

I've been listening to bits and pieces of the Dennis Miller radio show lately. About two or three weeks ago, he said a Republican winning Ted Kennedy's seat would be a sign of the apocalypse. I thought to myself, "Yeah, he's right, that'll never happen."

Never been so glad to be wrong. The health care bill seemed like a foregone conclusion, and now the Democrats are gonna have to fight for it, possibly moderate it into something a Republican can support. It's a beautiful thing.

[KyleEverett]

What can I say? The left managed to bungle everything up again. Why can't there be a true moderate party? I am so tired of the left/right split. Everytime a side gets a majority though, they can only do it by trekking to the middle with their candidates then act surprised when they can't all stick together. Honestly, the middle needs it's own party that can have 10-15 seats in the Senate and about 50-60 in the House to make the 2 big parties really fight over their votes.

[BartSimpson]

martin14 wrote:

One piece of info I am missing is how much Obama
was helping / hurting the campaign. ?

When Obama started campaigning for Coakley he gave a speech where he went negative all over Scott Brown and then, in the speech, he admitted not knowing that much about the guy.

That reportedly didn't poll too well.

[Cernex]

KyleEverett wrote:

What can I say? The left managed to bungle everything up again. Why can't there be a true moderate party? I am so tired of the left/right split. Everytime a side gets a majority though, they can only do it by trekking to the middle with their candidates then act surprised when they can't all stick together. Honestly, the middle needs it's own party that can have 10-15 seats in the Senate and about 50-60 in the House to make the 2 big parties really fight over their votes.

We have one of those over here, called "PRI" (Partido Revolucionario Institucional) and believe when I say, after being under their leadership for more than 60 years... that you don't want one of those.

El Cernex

[martin14]

Cernex wrote:

"PRI" (Partido Revolucionario Institucional)

ahh the great democracy of Mexico.

[Psudo]

Finland is rather fond of their centrist party, or so I hear. Personally, I'd prefer the US Libertarian Party got a couple seats in the Legislature. I don't want centrists, but I'll take a third partisan party.

[GreenTiger]

A number of years ago a Rupublican Mitt Romney was elected Governor of Massachusetts. The Democratic party machinery, which is very powerful there,was afraid if Ted Kennedy or the other Mass Senator passed beyond the valley of the shadow while in office Romney would be free to sppoint a Reblican Senator to fill out the unexpired term. This was an unexceptable threat.

To prevent such a "disaster" from happening they passed a number of laws mandating that the Governor's power to appoint a Senate preplacement a special election had to be held in a conveluted way expecting that the heavily Democratic state would elect a Democrate aftewr a rather long campaign.

Mitt Romney left office at some point and a Democratic Governor was elected as usual. The State democrates forgot about the election law they put in place.

The Democratic PArty in Congress had a "super majority" meaning that they could ignore the opposition. The problem was that they distinguished themselves by behaving like a bunch of greedy self centered bastards outdoing themselves showing how much a political pig each could be. Senators like Joe Lieberman relished the role in preventing heath care reform to keep his wife an insurance lobyist quite wealthy. This left a lot of us down south disgusted at the entire group.

After a nausiation session of grab and greed reminding one of the movie Plaet of the Apes the 60 votes were finally lined up,
unfortunatly Senator Kennedy died of brain cancer and went to that big gin bottle in the sky the Party went woops we are now one vote short.

The Democratic Party bit themselves in the ass because they had to hold this special election. The Democratic candidate was an increadidly arrogant bird who in her own words "didn't need to freeze her ass off camapaing" she didn't realize the devine right of kings doesn't apply to US Senate Candidates.

The Republican Guy (whoes only claim to fame is that he is a nude male model) campaiged quite hard and given the general disgust of the Democratic party's behavior gave the Democratic party a swift kick in the groin and elected this dude. Something totally ouy of character for the area. It would be like Stephen Harper winning a riding in Quebec singing God Save The Queen.

The Democratic party, after getting an ice pack for their groin, is concerned that this is an election year and that if they don't start acting the way they are supposed to they are going to loose a lot more seats.

I think they finally got the hint.

Newsbot wrote:

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Political colors (click to view)
Date: January 22, 2010
The Senate seat of the late Ted Kennedy is now held by a Republican. In a major upset this week Massachusetts state senator Scott Brown beat out Democratic attorney general Martha Croakley to return Kennedy's seat to the GOP for the first time since 1953.

How did he pull it off? It's hard to say. Massachusetts is an extraordinarily left-wing state, so it's hard to argue — as the Republican mainstream is presently doing — that Republicans are simply more popular than ever right now due to President Obama's various bungled big-government initiatives on things like healthcare and the environment. Liberal people don't generally see these things as bad unto themselves, and it's hard to believe the unknown Scott Brown simply convinced the Massachusetts electorate to turn conservative overnight, so there are clearly some bigger factors at play here.

Some of the more measured analyses of the race, in my opinion, have focused on the fact that Ms. Croakley was a uniquely awful candidate (she spelled "Massachusetts" wrong in one of her ads, for example) and the reality that Mr. Brown is much more moderate than his red state cheerleaders want to acknowledge. Many, on both sides, have also been quick to characterize Brown's election as a vague "protest vote" against the Washington status quo, which, due to the limits of the American party system, can often entail supporting a candidate you would not otherwise have much to do with.

But what do you think? Post your armchair quarterbacking in the forum through the link below.

[martin14]

GreenTiger wrote:

It would be like Stephen Harper winning a riding in Quebec singing God Save The Queen.

while burning a copy of Bill 101.....



well said GT !

[Cernex]

martin14 wrote:

Cernex wrote:

"PRI" (Partido Revolucionario Institucional)

ahh the great democracy of Mexico.

... Which ironically has only exited for around 10 years or so. Before PAN's Vicente Fox (Mexican president from 200 to 2006), the country was pretty much ran by one party (PRI) since it had both the President and the majority on EVERYTHING.

You can imagine how that went. Just do a quick wiki search.

You can say warever you want about our country's current politicians... and most probably can be right. But at least, with a divided senate and a PAN ("Partido Accion Nacional" President, at least SOME LEVEL of democracy is going on.

El Cernex

[commanderkai]

GreenTiger wrote:

The Republican Guy (whoes only claim to fame is that he is a nude male model)

You're kidding, right?

[Psudo]

That's the only thing liberals know him for. They can't recognize his law degree, National Guard service, etc. because those are positive attributes about a Republican and, thus, are invisible.