Mass: 2008 v. 2010

[ProSense]

Coakley...1,058,682.........Brown....1,168,107
Obama....1,891,083.........McCain...1,104,284
Kerry......1,959,843.........Beatty......922,727

[inthebrain]

1. The left stayed home

[tekisui]

3. Not necissarily. A lot of Indys voted for Obama.

SOme of the left probably stayed home, some of the Indys switched.

[inthebrain]

7. The Indies in this state ARE STRONGLY LEFT WING!!!

This is freakin MA. And yes, EVEN THE INDIES STAYED HOME.

You're talking about a state that regards Howard Zinn as a local hero. The Indies here are not conservatives.

[Ken Burch]

2. Which absolutely doesn't prove your lie that Coakley's loss was the left's fault

And you know it.

Any state has lower turnout in an off-year vote. It was impossible for it to be otherwise. Liberals CAN'T be blamed for that.

It was the fault of our leader's timidity.

[tekisui]

4. Liberal's couldn't be blamed even if they did stay home.

It is the responsibility of the Party and the Candidate to give a reason for support.

[ProSense]

5. What the hell are you talking about? n/t

[Ken Burch]

8. This whole thread is part of your "it's all the LEFT's fault" lie.

It was centrism and timidity's fault. Face it.

A Clintonite with a flag pin would have to have done worse.

[ProSense]

9. You need to get a huge grip. n/t

[cadmium]

13. It was a combination of factors

There were lots of factors: demographics, white power sentiment, media, poor Coakley campaign, money, Brown family star power, liberals staying home, minorities staying home, health care controversy, right wing talk radio etc etc. In my opinion of all those factors media Brown support and Brown family star power was the biggest factor.

[Cha]

6. I do feel for those

voters in Mass who didn't fall for brown's shit.

"A NOTICEABLE DROP-OFF IN QUALITY"

Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-Mass.) offered an interesting peek into his worldview last night during his victory speech.

" In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.

"Raising taxes, taking over our health care, and giving new rights to terrorists is the wrong agenda for our country."

Perhaps now would be a good time to note that this is a Senate seat once held by John F. Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge, and John Quincy Adams, among others.

It now belongs to Scott Brown -- a conservative who supports torture, opposes Wall Street accountability, supports more tax cuts for the wealthy, opposes economic recovery efforts, opposes Ted Kennedy's life's work on health care reform, and doubts that global climate change is the result of human activity.

And says things like, "In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."

It's admittedly tiresome to hear any political observer say, "In the good old days...." Those days were rarely as good as anyone remembers, and prominent thinkers of the day have been complaining about the next generation being less impressive than the last for as long as we've had the printed word.

But a once-storied Senate seat that belonged to Adams and Kennedy is now filled by a dim-witted wingnut, and that's a real shame -- for Massachusetts, for the Senate, and for all of us.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

Thanks Steve Benen for pointing out the obvious that might take some in Mass a while to fathom. They say they want their country back? Some slogan the teabags came up with and they have no idea what it means.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[inthebrain]

10. Scott Brown voted for the MA Health care reform Bill

You can bet he will vote on Obama's bill. It's just a matter of how viscuous it is to suit his tastes. Thus far the one in MA is better than the one offered by Obama and it still sucks.

[hfojvt]

11. not sure what that implies

is the Kerry vote from 2008?

I highly doubt that all of McCain's 1,104,284 supporters came out and voted. However, it does seem likely that they are more energized. First, because they sensed the possibility of an upset. Second, because it is much easier to be negative. This is true of the left as well. We were more united AGAINST Bush than we were for Kerry or even for Obama. It's easy enough in a huge piece of legislation like HCR to find one or two things that you really don't like and thus to be wobbly in support of it, especially if it is a compromise, supposed to please a larger majority, but a good part of the public keeps their focus on the negatives.

I was trying to see if Mass was all that reliably blue. Somerby points out that they have had Republican Governors from 1986 - 2002. Kerry and Kennedy won handily, but incumbents often have an easy time of it because of money and name recognition advantages. In 2008, Obama won handily 61.8% - 36%. In 2000, Gore won handily 59.8% -32.5%-6.4% for Nader. Some of that might be more regional than ideological. Do they like Texans in that state? Also, do they like female candidates. Mondale lost in 1984 by 51.2 to 48.4. Did Ferraro hurt him in Massachusetts? In 1976, Carter won handily over Ford, but it 1980 Reagan won by 41.9-41.75 to 15.15 for John Anderson.

Perhaps there was left over anger from the primary. In 1988, Dukakis won by 53-45 which is not that impressive for a native son. Bush, for example, won Texas in 2000 by 59.3 - 37.98 - 2.15 for Nader and by 61-39 in 2004. McGovern won by 54-45 in 1972, likely because he had a Kennedy on the ticket.

[ProSense]

12. "I highly doubt that all of McCain's 1,104,284 supporters came out and voted."

And what does that mean? What percentage of McCain voters do you think stayed home: 830,000?