An exit survey of Massachusetts voters confirms that “decreased turnout among constituencies that historically have voted for progressive candidates,” combined with a strong Republican performance among independents, delivered Scott Brown the margins he needed to win.

think progress

Comments

  1. #1 Virgil Samms
    January 20, 2010

    … one thing that’s certain is that the progressive base’s current lack of enthusiasm is hurting Democratic candidates.

    I think one could just as easily say that a bad candidate hurt the progressive cause.

  2. #2 daedalus2u
    January 20, 2010

    If by “bad campaigning” you mean that the candidates did not accurately portray to prospective voters what they were voting for, then I agree with you.

    Unfortunately inaccuracy (AKA lies) prefferrentially benefits the GOP.

  3. #3 MadScientist
    January 20, 2010

    In this case I prefer to think of it as the Dems didn’t polish their turd as well as the other camp did. Hell, for all the talk that Coakley “supports health care reform” there was never any mention of her position on the bills in the senate and congress and much drummed up to insinuate that she’ll somehow support the senate bill – just the usual lying and jostling by politicians. By the way, what’s happening with all that congressional reform that the Dems promised? Oh, gee, there is none – just like the Goddamned Other Party. Oh, and Coakley’s statement that the war is not in Afghanistan – it’s hard to imagine anything dumber. That trumps Dubbyah’s “Mission Accomplished” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in the “Ignoring the Obvious” category.

  4. #4 Stephanie Z
    January 20, 2010

    Aw, Patriot Protector, that’s so cute. You’ve been waiting to do that for a loooong time, haven’t you? I haven’t seen that kind of sneering arrogance since…since…why, since Obama was elected. What did you do to let out the pressure in the meantime?

  5. #5 Stephanie Z
    January 20, 2010

    Is that all?

  6. #6 Bill James
    January 21, 2010

    An exit survey of Massachusetts voters confirms that “decreased turnout among constituencies that historically have voted for progressive candidates,” combined with a strong Republican performance among independents, delivered Scott Brown the margins he needed to win.

    :

    …one thing that’s certain is that the progressive base’s current lack of enthusiasm is hurting Democratic candidates.

    So what are we to surmise? When the going gets tough, progressives stay home?

    Economy is in the tank, people are losing jobs and homes, we still fight wars on two fronts, nearly a trillion dollars in new spending has been foisted upon the taxpayers within the last year with Obamacare poised to add another trillion as we raise the dept ceiling to accommodate a now 3.5 trillion dollar federal budget and we haven’t even passed that health care bill yet. Meanwhile Obama jets in last minute to stump for Coakley by way of denigrating Brown for driving himself around in a pickup truck. Must have been the center piece of his speech for he mentioned it six times.

    With little to be enthusiastic about, I’m not surprised that Progressives lack enthusiasm but it sounds more like Massachusetts lost its enthusiasm for Progressives. Unless Obamanomics can manage to spend this country out of bankruptcy between now and next November, we can all look forward to a Republican landslide like it or not.

  7. #7 Greg Laden
    January 21, 2010

    Unless Obamanomics can manage to spend this country out of bankruptcy between now and next November, we can all look forward to a Republican landslide like it or not.

    Unfortunately, that is probably true. The Republicans gave us most of the messes we are still struggling with (and will be struggling with for year) but the vast majority of voters are, simply, and sadly, too politically benighted to realize that. So we’ll end up with more of the same.

  8. #8 IanW
    January 21, 2010

    Since when has the current administration got any advantage from actually having those 60 votes? Seriously? If it made all that difference, they’d have all their signature legislation passed by now wouldn’t they?! As it is, it really makes no difference because instead of all those 60 (or 59 now) pulling together, they’re all in it for themselves and in order to get any legislation passed the Dems are still going to be forced into pandering to the lowest common denominator. This election has made no difference whatsoever to anything except to demonstrate what a bunch of blind, gullible, fickle and easily led sheep the electorate is.

  9. #9 daedalus2u
    January 21, 2010

    In related news, the SCOTUS has now ruled that there can be no limits on corporate spending to influence elections.

  10. #10 b
    January 21, 2010

    This election has made no difference whatsoever to anything except to demonstrate what a bunch of blind, gullible, fickle and easily led sheep the electorate is.

    This would have changed had the election gone to Coakley?

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!