The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My sophomore year in college I had moved off campus with some friends. One of the first nights in our new apartment we went and just got plastered on Tequila. Literally drank so much it's amazing I didn't die. I got home and had to take a shit and it was pure liquid diarrhea. Just an absolute mess. I was so drunk that I couldn't really clean myself up after because I had no balance and was fading in and out. Realized this and decided to jump in the bathtub/shower before I got shit all over the place (mind you I had not wiped). I felt another shit coming and just let it go in the bathtub with the water running (I couldn't get the shower to go on because I couldn't get up high enough to reach this switch). It is at that time I also started puking violently all over the tub. So there I was in the bathtub sitting in my own shit and vomit trying to get the shower turned on.

Well basically what I'm trying to say is that I handled that evening better than the Democrats have handled this election.

How did I miss this post?????? Good lord. My college years suddenly seem dull for all the right reasons.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And this is the response I would expect from a person who doesn't like FoxNews and is frustrated that the Democrats aren't accomplishing anything. It's perfectly understandable to be frustrated. FoxNews has reported on the Haiti earthquake and it's silly to imply otherwise. There's only so many ways that you can report that thousands are dead and Haiti is a mess with a dysfunctional government.

and the naive me is the one that wants the Dems to listen to the GOP and work with them, hence the dragging out while you, the GOP talking point (i know I know - youre not, youre anti-everything GOp except this [this time]), wants them to shove it down their throat. It really is bizarre.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Big stock market rally today, mostly based on big gains in heath care stocks.......

Health-Care Stocks Lead Rally; Citigroup Rebounds - CNBC

Also watched MSNBC over lunch and they were reporting heavy turnout outside of Boston, but only average turnout within the city. Democrat adviser that Andrea Mitchell interviewed said that turnout proportion was a nightmare scenario for Coakley.

[SirFozzie]

Parking lot was 85% full when I got there this afternoon. Interesting that it was a mostly older bunch of voters, but still so much in not great weather conditions (snow/rain/sleet mixture)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Hooooooo, boy. Election isn't even over and Coakley and Obama camps are already pointing fingers. Neither comes off very well............

Coakley adviser memo: D.C. Dems 'failed' Coakley - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

The ironic thing about all of this is that Brown isn't particularly fiscally conservative (or at least hasn't been as a state senator). He's a guy with Massachusetts-style fiscal ideas with a social conservative agenda. Of course, he would damage Obama and be MORE conservative than Coakley, but this guy isn't exactly the dream boy for the right. That was my main reason for not voting for him.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And this is the response I would expect from a person who doesn't like FoxNews and is frustrated that the Democrats aren't accomplishing anything. It's perfectly understandable to be frustrated. FoxNews has reported on the Haiti earthquake and it's silly to imply otherwise. There's only so many ways that you can report that thousands are dead and Haiti is a mess with a dysfunctional government.

For the record, I like Scott Brown better and hope he wins. But one of the big 3 cable news networks is a "news" network and the others aren't. I'm sorry, but hundreds of thousands die in an Earthquake and that next day is spent giving Sarah Palin a press tour on all the shows. Literally their primetime was filled with 2 hours of Sarah Palin interviews. All while one of the largest natural disasters and human travesties is taking place.

I'm not a partisian like you so I don't really care about whether an R or D wins in Mass. Brown is a pretty moderate guy and outside of his views on gay marriage, seems like he has a good head on his shoulders. Republicans will hate him in a year because he is not conservative and isn't going to be able to survive a term acting as one. In any event, I don't want one party to have a supermajority so I don't want Coakley to win.

I'm just pointing out that this has been huge news on right leaning sites/TV networks while you said the emotion was on the left which I really don't see.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Hooooooo, boy. Election isn't even over and Coakley and Obama camps are already pointing fingers. Neither comes off very well............

Coakley adviser memo: D.C. Dems 'failed' Coakley - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

Coakley will blame the Obama Administration even though her campaign didn't ask for help. Of course, asking for help requires the campaign to do something--but then again what do you expect from a campaign that didn't fight back, only held 19 events (compared to 60 plus by Brown), didnt' work for votes (and say what you will about Teddy, he worked for every vote), took a week off in a short special election cycle, and didn't bother to budget for tracking polls.

[SirFozzie]

Exactly. I want her to be primaried even if she wins. She assumed she'd win. I'm not upset that Brown will win (despite believing that a Coakley win would be better), because Coakley truly does not deserve to win.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Hooooooo, boy. Election isn't even over and Coakley and Obama camps are already pointing fingers. Neither comes off very well............

Coakley adviser memo: D.C. Dems 'failed' Coakley - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

Dola--
what I find funny is that the campaign staffer trying to blame the WH wrote this memo BEFORE the campaign was over and voting had even happened. Talk about a major CYA memo.

[Raiders Army]

Massachusettes FTW. I hate that Yankees guy, Schilling.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

For the record, I like Scott Brown better and hope he wins. But one of the big 3 cable news networks is a "news" network and the others aren't. I'm sorry, but hundreds of thousands die in an Earthquake and that next day is spent giving Sarah Palin a press tour on all the shows. Literally their primetime was filled with 2 hours of Sarah Palin interviews. All while one of the largest natural disasters and human travesties is taking place.

I'm not a partisian like you so I don't really care about whether an R or D wins in Mass. Brown is a pretty moderate guy and outside of his views on gay marriage, seems like he has a good head on his shoulders. Republicans will hate him in a year because he is not conservative and isn't going to be able to survive a term acting as one. In any event, I don't want one party to have a supermajority so I don't want Coakley to win.

I'm just pointing out that this has been huge news on right leaning sites/TV networks while you said the emotion was on the left which I really don't see.

The issue is that the Republicans have made it painfully clear (filibustering on the debt ceiling?!?!! really!?!?!) that they're not willing to let the Democrats get ANYTHING done. So a vote for Brown is essentially a vote for 2 years of complete gridlock in Washington. And that won't be beneficial to anyone as we try to get out of this recession.

[RainMaker]

People who stand out in the cold to watch sports or work are schlubs.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The issue is that the Republicans have made it painfully clear (filibustering on the debt ceiling?!?!! really!?!?!) that they're not willing to let the Democrats get ANYTHING done. So a vote for Brown is essentially a vote for 2 years of complete gridlock in Washington. And that won't be beneficial to anyone as we try to get out of this recession.

I couldn't think of anything better than what you just described. Are you kidding? Two years of gridlock and no stupid ideas from either side? If only the Democrats weren't now the party of war this would be the greatest election result ever.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by panerd

I couldn't think of anything better than what you just described. Are you kidding? Two years of gridlock and no stupid ideas from either side? If only the Democrats weren't now the party of war this would be the greatest election result ever.

It has been my wish to have someone like Obama as president and a Republican-controlled Congress, but there is a long ways to go before that will happen. All throughout the election, I was adamant about not having a one-party govt. Mostly bad things happens when there is - namely so much more federal powers and expenditures for so little value.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It has been my wish to have someone like Obama as president and a Republican-controlled Congress, but there is a long ways to go before that will happen. All throughout the election, I was adamant about not having a one-party govt. Mostly bad things happens when there is - namely so much more federal powers and expenditures for so little value.

Yep. I hope the tide doesn't switch too much the other way. The democrats have really bad economic ideas but the Republicans have even worse personal freedom ideas (meaning anti-personal freedom obviously) and somehow convince the Democrats to vote for them. I would love an Obama presidency with a republican congress. Outside of the wars that Clinton got us involved in I thought '94-'00 wasn't much of a disaster. And the impeachment stuff just prevented them from meddling in other areas of my life that actually effected me.

[RainMaker]

Yeah, seems the best way is a Democratic President and Republican Congress to get spending in check and the deficit down.

[Flasch186]

as an aside and back to how the banks are playing us all for fools, they sent my mom a letter stating that if she doesnt send them 'the paperwork theyve previously asked for the modification will be deemed invalid.' Well luckily my mom is one of those types who writes down every conversation, documents when things are faxed, etc. So WFC is full of shit and the stats of whom is eligible, sending back the necessary info to get a mod, etc. is total BS unless of course my mom is the one anomaly. She'll call tomorrow to find out what paperwork theyre talking about since it isnt listed on the letter and fax it over right then but she has no doubts that this is just their way of stopping the process now that the market(s) are recovering. The banks suck and if it wasnt for the fact that I feel like not bailing them out wouldve led to the 2nd great depression I wouldve set them all out to sea. Instead we save ourselves and they continue to be the awful entities that they are....that we allowed to exist as they do with no social contract at all.

[JPhillips]

And Evan Bayh is already running for the exit. Here's an idea Evan, if you think there should be different policies why don't you propose some legislation rather than just shitting on everything everybody else does.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yeah, seems the best way is a Democratic President and Republican Congress to get spending in check and the deficit down.

Under normal circumstances I might agree with this, but right now the current GOP won't negotiate on anything. I don't see any chance of restraining spending or coming close to balancing the budget. They'd rather play for 2012 then allow Obama to accomplish anything.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But one of the big 3 cable news networks is a "news" network and the others aren't.

Which one? And if you tell me its the one that has quick links on the front page of its website to let you buy T-shirts with its headlines on it, then man do they have you fooled.

I don't think there IS a cable news network. I'm not sure anyone is really interested in telling the news anymore.

[Flasch186]

Just Sayin'

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Which one? And if you tell me its the one that has quick links on the front page of its website to let you buy T-shirts with its headlines on it, then man do they have you fooled.

I don't think there IS a cable news network. I'm not sure anyone is really interested in telling the news anymore.

That's a revenue source and I don't judge their news division for that.

But we had a major natural disaster. Perhaps one of the biggest in the modern era. They are the only network really on the ground and covering the story. Sean Hannitty kissing the feet of Sarah Palin and promoting her new show or Keith Olbermann bashing Rush Limbaugh is not news.

CNN isn't perfect by any means. Their choice of stories is questionable and they spend too much time with the talking heads arguing about crap. But I think they are much different than what you get from Fox and MSNBC. Those networks are just propoganda machines for the respective parties. CNN actually does its best to cover news in the world and not basing it on what is in the best interest of a political party.

In 24/7 news you're always going to have fluff and bullshit thrown in because you need filler. But if a major event happens in the world, CNN will be covering it much better than other networks. They have shown their superiority in their Haiti coverage which no other network has even come remotely close to.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

As a side note, anybody who expects Scott Brown not to be a party-line GOP vote is fooling themselves. Especially when the GOP probably knows the guy is toast in 2012.

On the other hand, a guy who knows he's probably a one-termer has a lot of freedom to do exactly what the heck he wants.

[SirFozzie]

Coakley has conceded in a phone call to Brown, according to the Globe

Congrats Scott Brown, looks like. Now, one more rant..

I'm Unenrolled (read: Independent). Just because Massachusetts is one of the bluest states around, doesn't mean you get in automatically if you win the Democratic Party primary.

Whoever's going to be my Senator not only has to say what they'll do for the state I live in, or make promises. They have to back it up with action. Martha Coakley coasted through the primaries, as the heir apparent. I didn't vote there, but if I had, I would have voted Capuano. But that's neither here nor there.

So, coasting out of the primary, she decided to take a couple weeks off. EXCUSE ME? EXCUSE ME????She can't even campaign two out of four weeks? She goes off gallivanting about and leave your party hanging, let the other side write the story when the news is going against you.

They wrote the missive, they said what they're going to do, and they went out and about. They talked to the people they were going to represent in Congress. They got people energized.

And now, the day of the election, they release an attack letter blaming "DC Democrats" for not supporting them??? Are you fucking kidding me? Never mind it's sour grapes, never mind how awful that is for party morale, never mind it's your own damn fault for assuming you were going to win on a walkover..

They released that letter WHILE VOTING WAS GOING ON.

That's.. that's pretty fucking stupid.

It hurts like crazy to have done it, I'd rather see the HCR package follow through, and not be killed for another 15 years, but guess what? I can't stand entitlement politicians. "I waited my turn, and since I waited like a good doobie, I should automatically get what I deserve.."

Yeah, you got what you deserved.

A vote for your opponent from me, and a loss in the election. Congratulations, you will now forever be known as the woman who lost Ted Kennedy's seat.

[JPhillips]

According to Rasmussen exit polling Coakley won voters who decided more than four weeks ago and voters who decided in the last week. Brown clobbered her while she was largely MIA. This is nobody's fault but her own.

[RainMaker]

I don't know why anyone would assume he's a one-termer. These politics are much more local than we lead on and it's not uncommon to have Red states with a long time Democrat and vice versa. Landrieu, Baucus, Byrd, and Gregg have all managed long tenures in states that swing the other way. I'm sure there are and have been more over time.

And lets not pretend that he's going to be a conservative. Brown is a Republican but he falls farther to the left than guys like Tester and Webb. If he was running in a Red state, he'd be considered a Democrat. Democrats should be upset but if Republicans think they have a guy who is going to be conservative, they are in for a surprise. He's going to do what it takes to make his constituents happy to survive in 2012.

[Flasch186]

Cant wait for the GOP's HCR package. They did say the current system is broken right?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Cant wait for the GOP's HCR package. They did say the current system is broken right?

Give the pharmaceutical companies a few weeks to put it together.

[JPhillips]

How exactly is he going to do that? He doesn't have the ability to propose legislation and he doesn't control any committees. If he starts to bargain with the Dems he'll get teabagged and his big money donors will dry up. I'll guarantee he'll vote with the GOP 95%+. There's not much freedom for a pol with ambition when he's a first termer in the minority.

And yes, the same would be true if he were a Dem in MS in 2002.

btw- WV was recently a safe Dem state and NH was a safe GOP state. Those switches are recent and IMO both will be swing states in the next three or four presidential elections. WV would have been a swing state in 2008 if Obama were white.

[Buccaneer]

37 percent of registered voters are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 51 percent are unaffiliated.

I find this to be very interesting and encouraging. In a state that is known to be solid Democrat/liberal/blue, a majority of the registered voters are not D or R. That sounds like a typical Western state where Independents always have ruled.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I find this to be very interesting and encouraging. In a state that is known to be solid Democrat/liberal/blue, a majority of the registered voters are not D or R. That sounds like a typical Western state where Independents always have ruled.

That's because Unenrolled means you can vote in either side (R or D) primaries.. if you declare D or R, you can only vote in those primaries.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

That's because Unenrolled means you can vote in either side (R or D) primaries.. if you declare D or R, you can only vote in those primaries.

Which, I believe, is unlike the West where yo cannot vote in either primaries if you are not registered as a D or R. Which is why I have never voted in a primary since I was registered in California in 1978.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm considering celebrating tonight's election news in a way that ol' Teddy would appreciate: by getting drunk. But I promise not to drive if I do.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I heard a Brown quote where he talked about not voting for health care reform as it stands, but did not say he wouldn't vote for it in any form. Think how he'll be labeled a turncoat, traitor, Benedict Arnold & RINO when he gets some concessions (that will probably make it a better bill) and it then passes.

Coakley ran maybe the worst campaign I have ever seen. The only thing she didn't do is show up in a Magic Johnson jersey and start a "J-E-T-S, JETS! JETS! JETS!" cheer.

[Flasch186]

Oh I also look forward to the GOP's support in the Senate of a bill....any bill.

[panerd]

LOL. It is almost too perfect. (Not perfect in the panerd is an asshole hoping for this, but perfect in the 41st senator elected at the last minute from liberal Massachusetts seems a little fishy) I wonder if this is just all part of the machine running things and making people think they have some say in a government that is basically run by a handful of individuals whose power we can't even fathom. I am still sane enough (for now) to realize this isn't the case but god damn it really wouldn't shock me anymore.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by panerd

LOL. It is almost too perfect. (Not perfect in the panerd is an asshole hoping for this, but perfect in the 41st senator elected at the last minute from liberal Massachusetts seems a little fishy) I wonder if this is just all part of the machine running things and making people think they have some say in a government that is basically run by a handful of individuals whose power we can't even fathom. I am still sane enough (for now) to realize this isn't the case but god damn it really wouldn't shock me anymore.

Not any fishier than a Congressional district in NY that had been a Republican seat since the Civil War voting in a Democrat. It is hard to compensate for horrible campaigning.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Smart man here. The Democrats need to regroup and restore some feeling that they've even listening to their constituents at this point. Stopping all health care legislation until he's seated would show that they're not trying to force anything through solely because they're about to lose their supermajority.

On to Plan C - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

So if there's a parallel to 1993/4 here, does that mean big wins for the Republicans in 2010 and then Obama getting blown a few years later?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yeah, seems the best way is a Democratic President and Republican Congress to get spending in check and the deficit down.

Yeah, this is the best "gridlock" I've seen.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

But wait, FOX News and Rush Limbaugh told me the economy collapsed because Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Fannie Mae, and ACORN made the banks give loans to *whispers* "those" *whispers* people.

I'm not here to defend Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, but if you don't think the pressure from W Bush (home ownership for everyone) and the Barney Frank/Charlie Rangel "Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac needs to give loans to everyone - including people with no chance of paying it off in 4 years" crowd seriously impacted the loan/housing crisis you are crazy. People were getting 300K houses on $600 sub-prime mortgages overseen by the above politicians. Both parties are guilty of looking the other way here, but let's not pretend it didn't happen.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Smart man here. The Democrats need to regroup and restore some feeling that they've even listening to their constituents at this point. Stopping all health care legislation until he's seated would show that they're not trying to force anything through solely because they're about to lose their supermajority.

On to Plan C - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

Why are you saying 'smart'...just a little while ago you were saying they should shove it through? Not trying to talk about the rest of your spin but I'd think you wouldve picked a different word considering your rhetoric from a week ago (pre-mass election).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yeah, this is the best "gridlock" I've seen.


I'm not here to defend Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, but if you don't think the pressure from W Bush (home ownership for everyone) and the Barney Frank/Charlie Rangel "Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac needs to give loans to everyone - including people with no chance of paying it off in 4 years" crowd seriously impacted the loan/housing crisis you are crazy. People were getting 300K houses on $600 sub-prime mortgages overseen by the above politicians. Both parties are guilty of looking the other way here, but let's not pretend it didn't happen.

everyone has a role to play in that debacle including the banks, appraiser, originators, borrowers, etc.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

On the other hand, a guy who knows he's probably a one-termer has a lot of freedom to do exactly what the heck he wants.

Unless he's trying to run for national office.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know why anyone would assume he's a one-termer. These politics are much more local than we lead on and it's not uncommon to have Red states with a long time Democrat and vice versa. Landrieu, Baucus, Byrd, and Gregg have all managed long tenures in states that swing the other way. I'm sure there are and have been more over time.

And lets not pretend that he's going to be a conservative. Brown is a Republican but he falls farther to the left than guys like Tester and Webb. If he was running in a Red state, he'd be considered a Democrat. Democrats should be upset but if Republicans think they have a guy who is going to be conservative, they are in for a surprise. He's going to do what it takes to make his constituents happy to survive in 2012.

He actually does have a base (nobody nationally is picking up on it, but he won this by destroying Coakley on the South Shore while everywhere else fell as expected - Live Massachusetts Election Results - NYTimes.com ) but if the Dems had run even a competent politician, or had there not been 3 men who split the vote in the primary and Coakley won by default because of the votes she garnered as the only woman, he still would have lost. Even the exit polls are showing that Coakley won when she was campaigning, even the last week when all her gaffes were occurring and negatives were being trumped up. Basically, the only way that Scott Brown wins in 2012 is if jobs haven't recovered and he rides a national wave of anti-Democrat sentiment that puts the GOP back in the majority in the Senate. Mitt Romney and Bill Weld were popular statewide figures and neither came close in their Senate races against a normal Democratic campaign - Romney even lost by close to 20 points in 1994.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Romney even lost by close to 20 points in 1994.

Romney wasn't just running for Kennedy's seat, he was running against Kennedy himself. Big difference.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Romney wasn't just running for Kennedy's seat, he was running against Kennedy himself. Big difference.

Yes, but Coakley had close to a 20 point lead coming out of the primaries as well.

Since that was only about a month ago, that to me points to a horribly run campaign more than a referendum on anything else.

[Buccaneer]

One interpretation from a libertarian-centric op-ed (our local paper)

Brown won because Americans, even in ultra liberal Massachusetts, don’t see any way either version of the health care bill can possibly work. Each forces Americans to buy health insurance, without doing a thing to increase the supply of health care to go around. Anyone with a high school education in economics knows that increasing demand, without a corresponding increase in supply, means higher prices and longer waits.

Democrats have been stupid in their approach to health care, and Republicans have been stupider. With this last minute, Hail Mary escape from some of the most dangerous legislation Americans have faced, it’s time for Republicans and Democrats to start over with health care reform.

The system in the United States is a mess. Most of the major problems, however, stem from longstanding government meddling in the free market. The tax code has caused a system in which most people buy insurance through an employer, without shopping among competitors for the best and fairest prices. The non-competitive insurance policies, products of the tax code, eliminate the traditional buyer-seller relationship in which buyers insist that sellers give them the fairest, most competitive, most efficient pricing.

A complex network of state and federal laws force consumers to buy policies full of coverage they don’t need. Regulations preclude most Americans from buying insurance from insurers in other states, thus reducing competitive pricing. Laws in a majority of states restrain the number of hospitals and clinics that private entrepreneurs are allowed to open, reducing competitive pricing and consumer options.

[RainMaker]

That's a good piece but do have a few issues with it.

The talk of free markets is good in some areas. We should make it easier for companies to compete across state lines and we should have a lot of options available. In a sense, less government is good there. However, the health insurance industry has a way of seeing the big companies eat up the small ones. You may open up competition for a few years but the biggest companies will just buy up all their competition. You just end up back where you were with a handful of options (all massive companies).

You also can't have a completely open free market with health insurance. No insurance company would ever cover a person with a pre-existing condition. Many wouldn't bother covering older people. So it's a nice setup if you're young and healthy, but if you don't win the genetic lottery, you have no options whatsoever.

And then the biggest problem is that regardless of these changes, we will still have to pay for those without insurance. You can't have a society where hospitals can turn ambulances around or decide they don't like you insurance company that much that you'll have to drive a few hours elsewhere for that emergency treatment. With that said, someone has to pay for those people and it ends up being us. So we still need to find a better option for those who can't get health insurance because we pay for it one way or the other.

I also don't think you can have any reform without opening up the fucking borders. It's insanity that we have to pay so much more for drugs. Time for other countries to start footing the bill for these drugs. All this talk about free markets from the right and they want to restrict business because they get a shitload of money from Big Pharma.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Jon

Coakley will blame the Obama Administration even though her campaign didn't ask for help. Of course, asking for help requires the campaign to do something--but then again what do you expect from a campaign that didn't fight back, only held 19 events (compared to 60 plus by Brown), didnt' work for votes (and say what you will about Teddy, he worked for every vote), took a week off in a short special election cycle, and didn't bother to budget for tracking polls.

From what I saw & heard, her biggest problem was when she would show up and open her mouth. Maybe they were onto something by keeping her as far away from the public as possible. It's difficult to believe she would have done worse if she had smiled, waved and wore a Ted Kennedy campaign pin.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yes, but Coakley had close to a 20 point lead coming out of the primaries as well.

Since that was only about a month ago, that to me points to a horribly run campaign more than a referendum on anything else.

Sure, it was a horribly run campaign. She ran it like she was Kennedy himself, not needing to meet people or introduce herself. But, still, you're comparing apples to oranges. Sure it was 1994 with a similar political climate, but to say that Kennedy won because of a good campaign instead of a bad one does not come out of this. There won't be a 32-year senator running for re-election next time either.