Can the Coakley primary voters please listen to the Capuano primary voters in 2012?

[Bombtrack]

So we can limit this asshole to half a senate term? We saw her for the lightweight/hack she was early on and you guys denied it.

Alot of us also saw a similar thing in the 2002 primary and subsequent defeat of fellow Clintonite hack (but not nearly as much of the campaign and debate failure) Shannon O'Brien when she crapped out against fellow Handsomecrat Mitt Romney.

[rox63]

1. I voted for Mike in the primary

And I still think he would have been a better opponent against Brown. Too many people were afraid he would have challenged Scotty to a bar fight after one of the debates. But I think that would have been better than Coakley taking victory for granted and handing Teddy's seat over the repukes.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

5. Hibernating was far from her only failing.

In fact, according to her campaign Tuesday, she was not hibernating but fundraising because she had run out of money during the primary. Which meant that she had not managed her primary campaign well. But, if that is true and not a cover story given after she lost, I blame the DNC. They should have had her back as soon as she became the nominee (a) because she was the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate and (b) because she was the 60th vote on which the re-election of so many other Democrats will hang.

As for Martha, however, she had proven herself a lightweight before the primary ended. And, those of us who opposed Martha did try to give good reasons. Some of the relevant threads in this forum alone:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x15217

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x15253

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x15233

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x15106

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x15335


So, the OP's question, will you listen to us next time, is not coming from nowhere.

I know why I picked Mike. Experience at the federal level, track record of liberal votes, member of the House Progressive Caucus, knowledgeable about the issues and past and pending legislation. Knowledgge of how things get done on Capitol Hill. Influence with Pelosi.

I have no clue why people picked Martha. The only things I can think of are her gender and her support of Hillary.

[Arkana]

7. I don't care where it's coming from.

I was fine with either Cap or Coakley, but voted for Martha because I knew more about her and liked her.

And this sanctimonious WE TOLD YOU SO coming from you and the rest of the "pure" grates on me and a lot of others.

[No Elephants]

3. I did a thread here saying she was the least intellectually qualified of the four

primary candidates before the primary even ended. Mike at least knew what he was talking about. But, he is not very charismatic, either.

[Blaukraut]

4. Evidently we don't need anyone intellectual.

Judging by what we voted into office on Tuesday.

[No Elephants]

6. We needed someone sufficiently intellectual to outdo Brown, both in general

campaign management/strategy and in debates. But we were not sufficiently intellectual to nominate such a person.

Say what you will about Brown's intellect. He knew enough to overcome a 31 point lead in six or seven short weeks and win by a substan5tial margin to boot.. That's "not nothing."

[fascisthunter]

8. I Voted for Mike Originally because he seemed to be the most...

progressive/liberal candidate.