Originally Posted by wavezncurlz
I got this info from a poster on another site and it sums up what I want to say much better than I could:
First, the president's rating in the State of Massachusetts is very high. He has a high approval rating in the state. He has a 67% approval rating in MA:
Second, Ms. Coakley ran a horrible campaign. How are you going to go on vacay less than a month before the election?
Third, turnout was very low in Democratic districts, especially majority-black districts. When minorities fail to turnout, it favors Republicans. That's why Republicans are always crying foul about voter registration (ACORN, anybody?). They don't want people to vote. High turnout = positive outcome for Democrats. This is a Special Election. Historically these types of elections don't produce high turnout no matter who's running.
Finally, ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL!! This has more to do with the individual candidate and the issues with Mass health care program than with anything outside of Massachusetts.
I know you will not agree though...
Okay, I still don't know how to cut up the quotes. :confused: So, on your first point, yes, the President still personally popular, especially in a place such as Massachusetts. It's his policies that are becoming increasingly unpopular. When only 35% of Americans want your health care bill and you try to ram it through anyway, there are going to be lots of people saying, "Whoa, stop!" Including, as we all just found out, even in Massachusetts.
Did Coakley run an embarrassingly bad campaign? Yep. Was she a gaffe machine who would have been "Quayled" by the media had she been a Republican? Yep. Did these things, coupled with her complacency, contribute to her loss? Definitely.
About turnout, Republicans don't cry foul over voter registration, they cry foul over voter fraud.
Big difference. ACORN is notorious for having workers rack up bogus voter registration cards. (This is a fact, not a partisan accusation.) Vote fraud threatens everyone's vote by cancelling out someone else's legitimate vote. I was living in WA state when Christine Gregoire won the governorship through such shenanigans during the recount. Al Franken's win in MN comes to mind as well, with the differing standards for counting absentee ballots and boxes of ballots miraculously showing up days after the election.
I'd actually love to see the purple ink pots at the polls like they have in Iraqi elections -- helping to ensure that everyone votes once
. It is the Democrats who cry foul when these types of commonsense measures (including showing ID when you vote, allowing military ballots more time to arrive, etc.) are discussed. The absentee ballot system is very commonly used for vote fraud and really should be revamped.
From what I heard, there was in fact pretty high turnout yesterday in Massachusetts. Something like 51% of MA voters are registered Independents, so in this election, with all the planets aligning for Scott Brown politically, they were not a lock this time for the Dem candidate. I think you are making a lot of generalizations in assuming that high turnout is always good for Democrats. People in Massachusetts were motivated. It just looks like Brown's supporters were more motivated than Coakley's.
About your point that all politics is local, yes, who can argue with that? :) But Brown specifically ran as the "41st vote" against Obama's and the Democrat's health care bill, as well as being serious about national security and not giving terrorists constitutional rights (his line last night was great -- our tax dollars should be spent defeating them, not paying for their defense lawyers), lowering taxes (remember the ingenious JFK ad he did in black and white?), among other things that have national implications.
Anyway, we will see how this Brown election affects things. It should be an interesting 2010 for us political junkies.