It's funny how people try to turn an election between two unknowns into something more than it is. I think Coakley is just a horrible candidate, and that's the major reason she is probably going to lose.
Some are saying this race may very well be the hottest in the last 50 years. As Denny so succinctly relates, it's certainly a referendum on the health care bill and on the democrats' agenda. If Brown wins (and, currently, it's looking pretty good for him), the fallout is gonna be profound.
I disagree. I'm right in the middle of the whole situation and I don't see it that way at all. In fact, Coakley had a big lead when it was a straight up unknown D vs. unknown R battle. It wasn't til the voters actually got to know the candidates, themselves, that things started to change. Bottom line, Brown is very likable and Coakley is not.
Also, Coakley is running a "gloves off" type of campaign and I think all of the venom from her side is turning a lot of people off.
Thrilla, The election is being waged by the republican almost exclusively on a promise to vote against the health care bill, making it so republicans can filibuster it. It would effectively kill the bill, assuming that the monkey business (delay/stall tactics in seating Brown) would not buy the Dems time to get afinal vote on the bill. Coakley had a 30% lead. How can you say a democrat in a democrat leaning state running for Teddy's seat ran a poor campaign if she had such a big lead and people want this bill to pass?
That may be true. Fact is, though, if Brown wins, the whole health care situation might very well be turned on its side. Stay tuned.
Why would the people of Mass. decide who to vote for based upon a universal health care, when in fact, Mass. already has their own universal health care plan in place already? These people will barely be affected one way or the other. I think you're thinking a little too hard.
You make the very point that Brown makes. Why should there be a federal bill when the states (like Mass.) can do it on their own at a much lower cost? And Mass. would be affected quite a bit. They currently insure 98% of the people, while the Feds might insure 85%. It's not just the health care bill, but people generally want smaller government (the polls say so by like 60%-30%) and they don't like the ridiculous deficit spending going on. The republicans having the power of the filibuster means that democrats have to find a compromise or not get to tax and spend like they want to.
Explain to me what changed since her 30% lead, other than people getting to know her and him. The health care bill, increasing government, deficit spending, tax and spend, etc. etc. has been going on the whole time. So in your opinion, people went from liking all that to hating it all in that short amount of time?
That just goes to show you I'm right. they supported the Democrats based on philosophy, but are now switching to Republican based on the candidate.
They went from uninformed to informed. During that time, a lot of bad deals were cut to get democrats to vote for the bill, like $300M to La and Ne.
Heh, leave it to Olbermann.... http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...rresponsible-homophobic-racist-teabagging-sup
Looks like this should be interesting. Dems have a lot on the line, Republicans have their relevance. Doesn't matter to me. I like Brown as a candidate better, but I would also be happy to see the Dems keep their majority. *shrug*
The Democrats would still have their majority, and by a sizable margin. The difference would be that they would have to at least pretend to listen to the other side, rather than just ignoring them altogether.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/19/pollster_john_zogby_predicts_a_coakley_win.html I agree with Zogby. I think the Democrats will be mobilized now and it will result in a narrow Coakley victory. I hope I'm wrong.
By their majority I mean their current majority. If the blues lose this seat it will have implications on Barack's agenda (be it good or bad).
