Brown or Coakley?
I voted Brown today.
I voted Brown today.
Libertarians are useless, meaning the actual party. They're a bunch of twits who couldn't organize a mass suicide for lemmings. Plus they sold out, last election they ran Bob Barr for ****'s sake. Guy wants to keep the drug war going and ramp it up even, and he was the 'libertarian' candidate.Im pretty sure this illustrates the clear disillusionment with both parties as how voters turned on each of them so quickly, in a butt****ing homo state like Massachusets no less...libertarians? This is your time now?
Or it could be much ado about nothingI was more thinking 3rd party solely in house/senate/governor positions, but it could be the start of a larger movement
yeah, the republican getting elected in a state that is 3:1 registered democrats to republicans doesn't mean anything :crazy:Or it could be much ado about nothing
yeah, the republican getting elected in a state that is 3:1 registered democrats to republicans doesn't mean anything :crazy:
I seriously doubt it. The majors can and will join forces to crush any and all third party candidates, and most media outlets will facilitate their efforts. And sorry to say to Vtaper, Ron Paul proves the point; they evicerated him and the media jumped on that bandwagon like it was going to a country called Free *****land. The backroom deals will not change because unless the voters represent a direct threat to the candidates by voting them out, they simply don't count in those deals. And as long as someone like Paul is running in the party machine it's quite arguably easier to destroy them. Sure, third parties get few votes. In the end Paul got NO votes in the election, because as was predictable both major parties could agree on at least one thing; not him, anyone but him.I was more thinking 3rd party solely in house/senate/governor positions, but it could be the start of a larger movement
Sure, a Republican getting elected in a state where historically they have had to ****ing sneak around at night like ninjas to get anything done is nothing...Or it could be much ado about nothing
That's exactly what you'll see, and people will vote for them. What's missing from the analysis though is 'centrist' in DC means a practical, equal opportunity sell out as opposed to ideologically driven sell out. The end result is no different, the people who get to **** the tax payers change a little in composition, that's all.I actually think we might see more indy candidates making a run as a "centrist" with greater success
couldnt agree more. As has been said here countless times, by myself and many others, they are all the same regardless of party. We will be screwed over regardless of who is in power.Sure, a Republican getting elected in a state where historically they have had to ****ing sneak around at night like ninjas to get anything done is nothing...
This is a direct kick to the balls of Obama and his crew and anyone who says different is in ****ing la la land. What it is not however is an endorsement of John McCain, Mitt Romney, or any other NeoCon run of the mill bat**** Republican style moronics. But, that's how the Reps will take it, and they'll **** up just as bad next time around and get a kick to the balls just as hard as this one. Maybe they'll start a few more wars, or more likely they'll just show all the fiscal restraint they showed last time they were in power and run up a bill that won't be paid until the ****ing sun implodes.
No, the much ado about nothing is the repeating circle jerk called Election Day where people send the same lying, incompetent, corrupt pieces of **** to office while still expecting something different from the previous 80 times or so they sent the same pricks to DC. And the only change will be when those *******s get voted out and replaced by a third party, or when those pricks get shot and replaced by a third party. There's really no other options at this point. When the Republicans get in after Obama's **** up they're going to mortgage our future yet again, and instead of selling it to the unions and trailer park welfare trash they'll sell it to Halliburton and corporate welfare trash. And we'll be oh so much better off for it of course...
I dont disagree that the indys are no better, but this change hopefully will be slightly better. Not overly optimistic however.That's exactly what you'll see, and people will vote for them. What's missing from the analysis though is 'centrist' in DC means a practical, equal opportunity sell out as opposed to ideologically driven sell out. The end result is no different, the people who get to **** the tax payers change a little in composition, that's all.
Hope...stop depressing me cdb I'm still optimistic that "hope and change" can work in the public's actual favor
Now you're talking........the only hope/change we will ever see!Hope...
and Change...
I've always wondered whether or not those ads ever actually swayed anyone. I can understand how people may respond positively or negatively to this or that ad run by someone they oppose or agree with, but I have to wonder if any significant amount of people ever changed their votes in response to such ads. They always struck me more as energizing those who were already going to vote for or against someone rather than getting people to change their actual votes.Living here in Mass, I can tell you Coakley put on a crap campaign. All she really did was smear Scott Brown, and we even got phone calls of recordings from Obama & Bill Clinton, telling us to vote for Coakley. Kind of annoying. Brown's ads were much more of "She's attacking me, but let's talk about the issues..." Seemed to fare well with people I know.
from what i've seen and heard pollwise, the primary vote changes come from independents leaning away from whoever they feel is making more attack ads, and less issue ads. its a piece of obama's win, even tho he actually ran more attack ads, the perception was that mccain was running moreI've always wondered whether or not those ads ever actually swayed anyone. I can understand how people may respond positively or negatively to this or that ad run by someone they oppose or agree with, but I have to wonder if any significant amount of people ever changed their votes in response to such ads. They always struck me more as energizing those who were already going to vote for or against someone rather than getting people to change their actual votes.
there was a good summary of some of the troubles of the McCain campaign. It was a poorly run campaign, however, I dont know if he would have won regardless.from what i've seen and heard pollwise, the primary vote changes come from independents leaning away from whoever they feel is making more attack ads, and less issue ads. its a piece of obama's win, even tho he actually ran more attack ads, the perception was that mccain was running more
Yeah the indys do sway the most, but you really can't put the election on the indys for Mass when the blue to red ratio is so pronounced. Brown was voted in by the dems of mass.there was a good summary of some of the troubles of the McCain campaign. It was a poorly run campaign, however, I dont know if he would have won regardless.
I do agree, it is more the indys (or moderates) that sway
So what significance is this then?yeah, the republican getting elected in a state that is 3:1 registered democrats to republicans doesn't mean anything :crazy:
Being from NY, that is a typical blue state, regardless of the district. This is a much larger statement in Mass, specifically because of its national implications.So what significance is this then?
Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 49%-45% (with 92% of the voting in), becoming the first Democrat to control the district since at least the 1890s.
I am missing your point... are you arguing that this is not a referendum on the direction this country is heading?So what significance is this then?
Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 49%-45% (with 92% of the voting in), becoming the first Democrat to control the district since at least the 1890s.
It is what we are going to see every few years. Bad leadership and then a change....Repeat cycleI am missing your point... are you arguing that this is not a referendum on the direction this country is heading?
If that is your implication, then Obama doesn't even agree with you.
Agreed, until a viable 3rd party crops up that isnt tainted, we are in a wash, rinse, repeat cycle.It is what we are going to see every few years. Bad leadership and then a change....Repeat cycle
also big difference between 4 point margin, and 20+ point margin. And whether he was first democrat to control the district since the dinosaurs doesn't matter, whats the ratio of registered democrats to registered republicans?So what significance is this then?
Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 49%-45% (with 92% of the voting in), becoming the first Democrat to control the district since at least the 1890s.
Zero when you understand NYpolitics, the particular parties involved, and the fact that Diedre Scozzafava was probably a worse candidate to run than a dead pedophile stuffed with horse****.So what significance is this then?
Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 49%-45% (with 92% of the voting in), becoming the first Democrat to control the district since at least the 1890s.
Massachusetts actually has more registered "Independents" than any other partyYeah the indys do sway the most, but you really can't put the election on the indys for Mass when the blue to red ratio is so pronounced. Brown was voted in by the dems of mass.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Massachusetts doctors. | Male Anti-Aging Medicine | 2 | ||
Boston Massachusetts? | Powerlifting/Strongman | 0 | ||
Massachusetts Sucks. Hard. | General Chat | 37 | ||
"T. Vig" case update (Massachusetts) | General Chat | 0 | ||
Homo Marriage in Massachusetts ?! | General Chat | 338 |