Scott Brown won in Massachussetts and I hope he kills healthcare

Originally Posted by Pangalin

We already have like three dozen parties

The problem isn't that they don't exist

the problem is that they are total jokes

Ahh, so it's the same as here in the UK. You can have other parties, they just can't ever challenge the big two. I mean, there's no rule, or anything. It just never happens.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The message sent is that Democrats couldn't politic their way out of a wet paper bag.

Is it really, or is it just that (as I've read elsewhere) the Dems put up an unappealing candidate? Senatorial elections are going to be about local issues to some extent, right? Not so much about parties as a whole but about your own local candidate? You don't think plenty of people have Dem agenda in their hearts and minds but couldn't bring themselves to vote for the current candidate? Considering the place has been a Dem stronghold since forever, seems likely to me.

The real message here is that you can't expect to put up half-assed campaign, even in a stronghold. The people expect to be treated with just as much commitment as you'd offer in a hotly contested territory.

Now admittedly not being American all of that is just a general guess based on my experience of the way politics works, but what do you say? My last comment in the thread was just a flippant remark that Shin rightly corrected me on, but this is a genuine substantive post... I hope.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Not that this isn't correct, but how do you think you're contradicting my statement?

Cause you say the Democrats as a party "can't politic their way out of a wet paper bag" whereas it is quite possible that the party in general is still fairly capable other than this candidate and her team. Does it necessarily imply anything about the party as a whole if they lost one seat? I don't believe so. It doesn't exclude the possibility that the party as a whole have problems, of course.

If there's more I don't know, I freely confess my ignorance. I'm not putting myself forward as someone who knows all about the American political situation, I'm just taking an isolated look at one situation with the limited understanding available to me. I have to further admit that when I read Styphon's post I find he makes a compelling case. I do find it a little odd that people would be so strongly against the increased spending/taxation required for the healthcare bill in a state sometimes referred to as Taxachusetts though.

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

If the Democratic agenda was really that popular, just how unappealing a candidate was Martha Coakley if all that was at stake and still lose?

I don't think it is either possible nor wise for me to attempt an answer to that question, but I acknowledge the point you make by asking it. However, I have some questions of my own. Genuine questions, based on a desire to know rather than to make a point.

Please indulge me, I do not claim to be a political mastermind.

1)How much has the Democratic agenda really changed since Mass. last elected Senator Kennedy? It would appear to have been popular at that time and for many years prior.

2) Is it possible that personal factors rather than the Democratic agenda were the reason behind Kennedy's repeated re-election, and that events since his death have simply exposed the fact?

3) The Democratic agenda was popular enough for President Obama to have been elected about 15 months ago, have things changed greatly since then or would you say that Obama was elected for reasons other than the party agenda and his stance on the issues?

I'm genuinely curious here. If it isn't due to the weakness of the candidate, then the Democratic party must surely be doing something wrong which they were doing right at one point.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I don't see how you could have observed the last ten years and not come to the conclusion that the Democrats don't know how to play politics.

I admit they made a pretty terrible mess out of the previous presidential election, but honestly I thought they were currently in the midst of a renaissance. Bush/Gore on the other hand was a bit less clear-cut. Perhaps I don't observe closely enough, but I find it hard to see either party as massively superior in term of strategy. I stand fully ready to be told that statement makes me ignorant, though. Observing things from such a great distance it isn't easy to see clearly.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?