The more I hear and read about what’s going on in this country, the more I think the Democrats loss in Massachusetts will help them in the long run. One thing that occurred last night during the acceptance speech by Scott Brown was his pimping out his daughters on national television. This shows the type of deep intellectual thinker that he is and with his new found attention as the face (and body) of the right, it ought to be fun watching him speak for the party. Maybe he and Sarah Palin can team up and hit the campaign circuit for other Republicans.
The Massachusetts election also poses a problem for pundits. Because there were no exit polls and the polls leading up to the race were almost exclusively “horse race” polls, every pundit in the world is going to have free reign to spin it however they want, including me. :) But what this does is let a narrative be written that may not be true, which could serve to make Republicans over confident or read meaning into something that doesn’t warrant it. Politicians are best served by having accurate information and the lack of good details about this race could potentially be a problem for Republicans.
Who’s the next contestant on The Blame Game? I personally don’t like playing the blame game, it’s not very fun. I will take a few stabs at the horrible media that pollutes my TV and Computer, but not to blame them, but to shed light on them. I heard a great program on Diane Rehm’s show on NPR this morning and it made me think how the media and to some extent, Democratic pundits, set up the “straw man” that it was a democratic seat. Now I can see calling a house seat either a dem or rep seat, because you have distinctly partisan areas in all states. But a statewide seat is fair game for all parties. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, remember. So I don’t think it was ever the democrats seat to begin with. They certainly had every chance to win it, but it isn’t inherently a democratic seat.
I also question people who call it this great upset, some saying the biggest upset of the century…..I seem to recall them saying that about Obama beating Hillary too. No hyperbole there, eh? A special election that puts two candidates with no national exposure and no incumbency against each other shouldn’t, in my opinion, be anything but a minor upset. She was ahead in the polls initially, but that had a lot to do with the fact that no one knew who Brown was at first. Once he started running his populist campaign, the numbers immediately began to shoot up for him. Coakley went on vacation during the month-long election, give me a break.
The last thing I’ll say is that CANDIDATES MATTER! Just like elections have consequences, so do bad candidates. I hope my party will learn a lesson from this election and choose better candidates to run in these elections, because taking any seat for granted is pretty stupid.
I’m not getting all exercised about the loss in Massachusetts for the Democrats. The independent and moderates in our country seem to blow in the wind from election to election. I still think that the Democratic party is in pretty good shape, in comparison to the Republicans. The Repugs have Rush, Glenn, Sarah, Michael Steele, Newt, Michelle Bachman, DeMint….a bunch of real winners on their side. So the democrats ran the wrong candidate in Mass, who picked her anyway? We dems have to dust ourselves off, not get too excited, regroup, set some goals and pick some great candidates to challenge all those republicans leaving the House and Senate. The wind keeps blowing and the fickle middle will swing back again. But Democrats have to show a unified front.