PDA

View Full Version : Did the message win in Massachusetts or the method?



DSemple
01-20-2010, 09:52 AM
I’m of the opinion Brown’s victory isn’t a win for conservatism, it’s a rejection of the “shove it down your throat methods”, that both sides of the isle in Washington have been guilty of for that last decade.

There was no consensus about going into Iraq

Tarp was shoved down our throats.

The stimulus packages were rammed through.

Heath Care reform is being brokered in back room deals.


It all tastes like Asparagus.


....Don

YardleyLabs
01-20-2010, 10:02 AM
I’m of the opinion Brown’s victory isn’t a win for conservatism, it’s a rejection of the “shove it down your throat methods”, that both sides of the isle in Washington have been guilty of for that last decade.

There was no consensus about going into Iraq

Tarp was shoved down our throats.

The stimulus packages were rammed through.

Heath Care reform is being brokered in back room deals.


It all tastes like Asparagus.


....Don

I suspect that there was not one simple message behind the voters' decision. Massachusetts polls show strong (57%) support for Obama, and even strong majority support for the President's health plan. What they didn't show was support for Coakley who ran a dismissive campaign. If the administration had not lost support from independents and moderate democrats, Coakley probably would have won despite being a bad candidate.. Had Coakley been a good candidate, she probably would have won despite the problems fced by the administration. Having a bad candidate and administration problems spelled victory for a guy who would have had trouble being elected dog catcher under different circumstances.

AmiableLabs
01-20-2010, 10:36 AM
I’m of the opinion Brown’s victory isn’t a win for conservatism, it’s a rejection of the “shove it down your throat methods”, that both sides of the isle in Washington have been guilty of for that last decade.
Close, but no soap. We are experiencing a wave of populism. In 2008, the voters overwhelmingly voted for "change." In a majority of ways, they got more of the same, just a different color.


I suspect that there was not one simple message behind the voters' decision. . . .What they didn't show was support for Coakley who ran a dismissive campaign. If the administration had not lost support from independents and moderate democrats, Coakley probably would have won despite being a bad candidate.
A perfect reiteration of the spin from the left. "It's not the policies! Oh no! It's the cowbell -- we need more cowbell!"

http://www.funnyhub.com/videos/pages/snl-more-cowbell.html

Keep it up. Please, keep it up. "More cowbell."

Hew
01-20-2010, 10:46 AM
Here's an interesting article that makes the case for national security/terror issues playing a big part...


“People talk about the potency of the health-care issue,” Brown’s top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, told National Review’s Robert Costa, “but from our own internal polling, the more potent issue here in Massachusetts was terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTAyNjJiMGZmMWU4NGQ2MDZlZjRlNDkyYTE0OGJlNGE (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTAyNjJiMGZmMWU4NGQ2MDZlZjRlNDkyYTE0OGJlNGE)=

I hope Cotts doesn't read this. :D

dback
01-20-2010, 11:05 AM
I suspect that there was not one simple message behind the voters' decision. Massachusetts polls show strong (57%) support for Obama, and even strong majority support for the President's health plan. What they didn't show was support for Coakley who ran a dismissive campaign. If the administration had not lost support from independents and moderate democrats, Coakley probably would have won despite being a bad candidate.. Had Coakley been a good candidate, she probably would have won despite the problems fced by the administration. Having a bad candidate and administration problems spelled victory for a guy who would have had trouble being elected dog catcher under different circumstances.

Not too hard to find folks that would disagree with that statement. www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Even-in-Massachusetts-weak-support-for-Dem-health-care-bill-81112097.html

AmiableLabs
01-20-2010, 11:23 AM
Massachusetts polls show strong (57%) support for Obama, and even strong majority support for the President's health plan.
NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE TRUTH. Yes, they support Obama at around 57%, BUT --

The citizens of Massachusetts oppose "proposed national near universal healthcare law" 51% to 36%. They oppose Obamacare 48% to 47%.

http://www.suffolk.edu/images/content/FINAL.MA.Statewide.Marginals.Jan.14.2010.pdf

Eric Johnson
01-20-2010, 11:38 AM
The number that really sticks with me was that only 12% of the voters in MA are Republicans. Match that against Brown's 52% vote total. He picked up roughly 40% from somewhere....Dems or the independents. That strikes me as a pretty powerful message.

Eric

DSemple
01-20-2010, 11:48 AM
Here's an interesting article that makes the case for national security/terror issues playing a big part...

Quote:
“People talk about the potency of the health-care issue,” Brown’s top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, told National Review’s Robert Costa, “but from our own internal polling, the more potent issue here in Massachusetts was terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTAyNjJiMGZmMWU4NGQ2MDZlZjRlNDkyYTE0OGJlNGE=

I hope Cotts doesn't read this. :D

From the Article - "Scott Brown went out and made the case for enhanced interrogation, for denying terrorists the rights of criminal defendants, for detaining them without trial, and for trying them by military commission. It worked. It will work for other candidates willing to get out of their Beltway bubbles."

A perfect example of explaining and selling a position, which Americans like, admire and respect, even if they don't agree with it.

Reagan used the same method. He explained and sold his ideas directly to the public and the public bought in to them and pressured their representatives to go along with his plans.

How you play the game matters.

Thanks Hew

huntinman
01-20-2010, 11:52 AM
So now every time a Lib loses the party line is "they did not run a good campaign" or "we had a bad candidate". Hell, we even said that about McCain...

That could be said about every losing campaign out there. Coakley was good enough to be elected Attorney General for the state. Maybe it wasn't the campaign or the candidate, but the message...

The best single event for conservatives in the last decade or so has been Obama. His Chicago style politics has galvanized the nation against this BS.

EdA
01-20-2010, 11:54 AM
This should make incumbent Democrats facing re-election in an off year a bit uncomfortable with their current position and may give some cause to re-evaluate their alignment with the Administration

If a Republican can be elected to the Senate from Massachusetts then almost anything is possible

subroc
01-20-2010, 12:04 PM
I suspect that there was not one simple message behind the voters' decision. Massachusetts polls show strong (57%) support for Obama, and even strong majority support for the President's health plan. What they didn't show was support for Coakley who ran a dismissive campaign. If the administration had not lost support from independents and moderate democrats, Coakley probably would have won despite being a bad candidate.. Had Coakley been a good candidate, she probably would have won despite the problems fced by the administration. Having a bad candidate and administration problems spelled victory for a guy who would have had trouble being elected dog catcher under different circumstances.

She was a great candidate. She bested a field of 4 top democrats including a millionaire to move on. I will say that makes her a great candidate. She held a 30 point lead. When comparing her ideas to Senator Scott Brown's, they fell short. Then she lost her lead and the election.

Trying to minimize the man’s achievement is all you got. No substance left to your position. It’s sad really...

Cody Covey
01-20-2010, 12:53 PM
Jeff I've seen you say it a couple times and now still haven't answered the calls to explain. HOW was Brown a bad candidate or as you put it an idiot. Seems like quite a few democrats and independents don't agree with you so please explain....

Hoosier
01-20-2010, 12:54 PM
I think a lot of people realized they were getting exactly what the right had been telling them they were going to get, and the country had an "oh shit" moment with this health care fiasco. It's gonna be a bloodbath for the Dems in the next couple of elections. The Republicans will probably have the presidency, and a filibuster proof majority by the time this all plays out.

huntinman
01-20-2010, 12:59 PM
Having a bad candidate and administration problems spelled victory for a guy who would have had trouble being elected dog catcher under different circumstances.

This may be the dumbest thing said by a lib yet. The man is an attorney, Lt. Col. in the Nat'l Guard and a state senator. You lefties think the anyone who votes against your agenda must be stupid. I hope all the libs keep going on the course they have been on. It will just shorten their time left in charge...

Gerry Clinchy
01-20-2010, 01:56 PM
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=553960#post553960)
Having a bad candidate and administration problems spelled victory for a guy who would have had trouble being elected dog catcher under different circumstances.


It was reported that they expected about 2.2 million in voter turnout of the 4.5 millioin registered voters in MA. I don't know if a final number has been reported.

I'm guessing that quote would offend about 1.14 million MA voters on Tuesday; and those who voted for Brown as their State legislator.

Mr. Brown and Ms. Coakley both had comparable educational background. Should he be embarrassed that he was a male model in his younger days? Would he be smarter if he were uglier? :-) Should he be embarrassed that his daughter was on American Idol? Why?

I'm sure there have been worse qualified Senators in our history. The list could probably start with some now serving :-) regardless of the letter after their name.

road kill
01-20-2010, 04:20 PM
Jeff I've seen you say it a couple times and now still haven't answered the calls to explain. HOW was Brown a bad candidate or as you put it an idiot. Seems like quite a few democrats and independents don't agree with you so please explain....


Because he is a Republican.

I was just helpin' Mr. Yardley, he must be busy rereading the Nationalized Healthcare plan!!:D



rk

WaterDogRem
01-20-2010, 08:02 PM
Gotta love the liberals continuing their liberal way of blame everyone and everything except themselves. If they don't see what the MA people voted for, then I can't wait till nov.

badbullgator
01-20-2010, 08:38 PM
Jeff I've seen you say it a couple times and now still haven't answered the calls to explain. HOW was Brown a bad candidate or as you put it an idiot. Seems like quite a few democrats and independents don't agree with you so please explain....


8 hours later and jeff is still searching the interweb for an answer to this :D:D:D:D

kjrice
01-20-2010, 08:38 PM
This should make incumbent Democrats facing re-election in an off year a bit uncomfortable with their current position and may give some cause to re-evaluate their alignment with the Administration

If a Republican can be elected to the Senate from Massachusetts then almost anything is possible
Only a year later of Change You Can Believe In, which speaks volumes, let alone in Mass. on any given year.