dajafi wrote:Oh, there's a wave. A righteous coast-to-coast yearning for Tax Cuts 'n' Torture.

But keep your damn hands off my medicare, or else!

dajafi wrote:Oh, there's a wave. A righteous coast-to-coast yearning for Tax Cuts 'n' Torture.

But none of you seem to care anything about policy anyway, so long as Red Team wins and you get that resultant dopamine rush.

It's people against the health care bill and cap and trade and the other action items on the Obama agenda.

dajafi wrote:Oh, there's a wave. A righteous coast-to-coast yearning for Tax Cuts 'n' Torture.

But none of you seem to care anything about policy anyway, so long as Red Team wins and you get that resultant dopamine rush.

All I need is some tasty waves
\

dajafi wrote:Oh, there's a wave. A righteous coast-to-coast yearning for Tax Cuts 'n' Torture.

But none of you seem to care anything about policy anyway, so long as Red Team wins and you get that resultant dopamine rush.

With all due respect, this post is heavy on the righteous sauce.

I don't recall seeing this kind of anger and bitterness around here after the 2008 elections. Is it possible that most people who voted for/supported Brown simply don't like Obama's/Democratics' policies? Is that an unreasonable consideration?

I think this election was more a repudiation of Reid than Obama. If Reid doesn't give those concessions to Ben Nelson, then Coakley wins.

Mountainphan wrote:

dajafi wrote:Oh, there's a wave. A righteous coast-to-coast yearning for Tax Cuts 'n' Torture.

But none of you seem to care anything about policy anyway, so long as Red Team wins and you get that resultant dopamine rush.

With all due respect, this post is heavy on the righteous sauce.

I don't recall seeing this kind of anger and bitterness around here after the 2008 elections. Is it possible that most people who voted for/supported Brown simply don't like Obama's/Democratics' policies? Is that an unreasonable consideration?

I think its more that Coakley ran a terrible campaign and expected to win without doing any heavy lifting. Kennedy was a tireless campaigner, even in years where he had token opposition. Obama's personal popularity is still pretty high.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:Oh, there's a wave. A righteous coast-to-coast yearning for Tax Cuts 'n' Torture.

But none of you seem to care anything about policy anyway, so long as Red Team wins and you get that resultant dopamine rush.

It's people against the health care bill and cap and trade and the other action items on the Obama agenda.

Yes, while unemployment is at 10 percent.

You know enough political science to understand the relationship between the economy and election outcomes. If we were adding jobs and GDP was growing at 4 percent, don't you think "the Obama agenda" would be doing a little better?

I'm becoming convinced that almost all political analysts are as prone to magical thinking and fairy-tale like narratives and generally as full of shit as the Bill Plaschkes and Marcus Hayeses of the world. The intangibles probably matter a little more in elections than in baseball, but it's still mostly structural and quantifiable factors that have explanatory power. (This is why we all like Nate Silver, and even Republicans don't often throw the "bias" charge at him despite his frequent professions of progressive leanings.)

You're getting to be kind of a hateful angry dude.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:Oh, there's a wave. A righteous coast-to-coast yearning for Tax Cuts 'n' Torture.

But none of you seem to care anything about policy anyway, so long as Red Team wins and you get that resultant dopamine rush.

It's people against the health care bill and cap and trade and the other action items on the Obama agenda.

Yes, while unemployment is at 10 percent.

You know enough political science to understand the relationship between the economy and election outcomes. If we were adding jobs and GDP was growing at 4 percent, don't you think "the Obama agenda" would be doing a little better?

I'm becoming convinced that almost all political analysts are as prone to magical thinking and fairy-tale like narratives and generally as full of $#@! as the Bill Plaschkes and Marcus Hayeses of the world. The intangibles probably matter a little more in elections than in baseball, but it's still mostly structural and quantifiable factors that have explanatory power. (This is why we all like Nate Silver, and even Republicans don't often throw the "bias" charge at him despite his frequent professions of progressive leanings.)

There were a lot of things that went into it, but Brown was running around promising to be the 41st vote against the health care bill. The out here for Dems is that Mass voters already have health care by and large, and what they're voting against is subsidizing other people's health care.

Also I'm sick of the crap that I don't care about policy. I follow elections a lot more closely than policy, but I care about what happens on the policy level. We've been over this 100 times. I talk about what I know, and that's elections. I have opinions on issues, and I've come to an educated determination that 99 times out of 100 it's going to be the Republican who best represents them. So seriously get off your high horse.

Mountainphan wrote:

dajafi wrote:Oh, there's a wave. A righteous coast-to-coast yearning for Tax Cuts 'n' Torture.

But none of you seem to care anything about policy anyway, so long as Red Team wins and you get that resultant dopamine rush.

With all due respect, this post is heavy on the righteous sauce.

I don't recall seeing this kind of anger and bitterness around here after the 2008 elections. Is it possible that most people who voted for/supported Brown simply don't like Obama's/Democratics' policies? Is that an unreasonable consideration?

It's certainly the conclusion that best fits what you want to be true.

And I would guess there's a degree of that--specifically, fear of change in a difficult economic time and the residual suspicion of Big Gummit trying to do anything. (What kills me about this with regard to health care is that the private sector has obviously failed to serve the public, while most regard Medicare and the VA as successful programs and even Medicaid is generally accepted as a necessary "evil.")

But given that Obama won the state by 26 points and still has decent approval there, I'm more inclined to put it on the choice between the skilled politician and the chucklehead who thought Schilling was a Yankee fan.

Seriously: if I were a PA voter and the Democrat suggested that Chase Utley cheered for the Mets, and the Republican was to the left of Santorum, I might well vote for the Republican.

Mountainphan wrote:

dajafi wrote:Oh, there's a wave. A righteous coast-to-coast yearning for Tax Cuts 'n' Torture.

But none of you seem to care anything about policy anyway, so long as Red Team wins and you get that resultant dopamine rush.

With all due respect, this post is heavy on the righteous sauce.

I don't recall seeing this kind of anger and bitterness around here after the 2008 elections. Is it possible that most people who voted for/supported Brown simply don't like Obama's/Democratics' policies? Is that an unreasonable consideration?

you must obviously be uneducated or racist to not follow the socialist doctrine of the elite.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:Oh, there's a wave. A righteous coast-to-coast yearning for Tax Cuts 'n' Torture.

But none of you seem to care anything about policy anyway, so long as Red Team wins and you get that resultant dopamine rush.

It's people against the health care bill and cap and trade and the other action items on the Obama agenda.

Yes, while unemployment is at 10 percent.

You know enough political science to understand the relationship between the economy and election outcomes. If we were adding jobs and GDP was growing at 4 percent, don't you think "the Obama agenda" would be doing a little better?

I'm becoming convinced that almost all political analysts are as prone to magical thinking and fairy-tale like narratives and generally as full of $#@! as the Bill Plaschkes and Marcus Hayeses of the world. The intangibles probably matter a little more in elections than in baseball, but it's still mostly structural and quantifiable factors that have explanatory power. (This is why we all like Nate Silver, and even Republicans don't often throw the "bias" charge at him despite his frequent professions of progressive leanings.)

So you're saying that the Obama agenda has some exploratory power? It sounds like you agree with everything you're railing against. No one's claiming (as far as I can tell) that the growing unpopularity of Dems is the only reason for the loss. If that was the case, then Repubs would be expecting to win every state more conservative than Massachusetts... which is almost every one.

Exploratory power?

Mountainphan wrote:

dajafi wrote:Oh, there's a wave. A righteous coast-to-coast yearning for Tax Cuts 'n' Torture.

But none of you seem to care anything about policy anyway, so long as Red Team wins and you get that resultant dopamine rush.

With all due respect, this post is heavy on the righteous sauce.

I don't recall seeing this kind of anger and bitterness around here after the 2008 elections. Is it possible that most people who voted for/supported Brown simply don't like Obama's/Democratics' policies? Is that an unreasonable consideration?

Silly question. Obama's approval ratings continue to be positive in Massachusetts, yet the Democratic candidate for the senate lost. People who don't like Obama's policies voted for Brown. And people who do like Obama's policies either stayed home or, in some cases, voted for Brown/ against Coakley themselves. There can be both dissatisfaction for whatever reasons AND a bad candidate that swings the election. Liberal minds can accommodate both these ideas at once.

dajafi wrote:Exploratory power?

LOL

swishnicholson wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:

dajafi wrote:Oh, there's a wave. A righteous coast-to-coast yearning for Tax Cuts 'n' Torture.

But none of you seem to care anything about policy anyway, so long as Red Team wins and you get that resultant dopamine rush.

With all due respect, this post is heavy on the righteous sauce.

I don't recall seeing this kind of anger and bitterness around here after the 2008 elections. Is it possible that most people who voted for/supported Brown simply don't like Obama's/Democratics' policies? Is that an unreasonable consideration?

Silly question. Obama's approval ratings continue to be positive in Massachusetts, yet the Democratic candidate for the senate lost. People who don't like Obama's policies voted for Brown. And people who do like Obama's policies either stayed home or, in some cases, voted for Brown/ against Coakley themselves. There can be both dissatisfaction for whatever reasons AND a bad candidate that swings the election. Liberal minds can accommodate both these ideas at once.

It's not a silly question at all.

FWIW, I believe the result tonight was due to both dissatisfaction with Dem. policies and a crap candidate. I'm disagreeing with those who are putting a much greater emphasis on the crap candidate-factor.

swishnicholson wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:

dajafi wrote:Oh, there's a wave. A righteous coast-to-coast yearning for Tax Cuts 'n' Torture.

But none of you seem to care anything about policy anyway, so long as Red Team wins and you get that resultant dopamine rush.

With all due respect, this post is heavy on the righteous sauce.

I don't recall seeing this kind of anger and bitterness around here after the 2008 elections. Is it possible that most people who voted for/supported Brown simply don't like Obama's/Democratics' policies? Is that an unreasonable consideration?

Silly question. Obama's approval ratings continue to be positive in Massachusetts, yet the Democratic candidate for the senate lost. People who don't like Obama's policies voted for Brown. And people who do like Obama's policies either stayed home or, in some cases, voted for Brown/ against Coakley themselves. There can be both dissatisfaction for whatever reasons AND a bad candidate that swings the election. Liberal minds can accommodate both these ideas at once.

This is better put and less emo than what I was trying to say.

My frustration is really with the Democrats who are caving, with a big dollop of despair at how structurally fucked up our politics are--and yeah, some sincere anger at the Republicans who are resolute in opposition but offer no positive solutions for the country's problems that I can discern. If that makes me hateful or whatever, okay.

90% of Massachusetts is white. I don't think this says much on the national level. Everything lined up for the republicans in this election.

dajafi wrote:Exploratory power?

the libertarian in the MA Senate race got 100% of the exploratory vote

The Nightman Cometh wrote:90% of Massachusetts is white. I don't think this says much on the national level. Everything lined up for the republicans in this election.

Solid explanation there