Massachusetts Residents

[RenegadeRows]

Brown or Coakley?

I voted Brown today.

 

[BabyHulk]

Victory !!

 

[CDB]

Losing the Mass senate seat for the first time in what, thirty or more years now? Good grief.

I don't know what I'm looking forward to more, the way Obama and his idiots try and spin this as not significant, or the cluster **** the Republicans are going to cause when they get back in power in 2012 and think they have a 'mandate' to go to NeoCon bat**** extremes.

 

[AE14]

gotta love the extreme swings. It will always make it interesting

 

[TexasTitan]

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?

 

[EasyEJL]

its amazing to think that a 3rd party actually has a chance now

 

[CDB]

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?

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.

And I don't think a third party has a chance, Easy. The back end machinery of the elections like who gets in the debates, how the districts are decided, etc., the two majors control it. All of it, every ****ing shred of it. And even if a third party candidate gets some momentum, the press will rip them apart because they're not one of the majors and the press won't sacrifice their precious access by offending one of the major parties too much.

No, what's going to happen now is the veil of democracy is going to be slowly pulled away and some nice feel good fascism will go in place for a while. It'll start with the comromise version of health care reform, which means all the Republican special interests will get greased along side the Democrat ones who've already gotten greased. The tax payer wil be even worse off. The resulting bill and subsequent actions will start taking away choices in the name of expanding choices, limiting freedom in the name of expanding freedom, and killing opportunities in the name of greater opportunity for all.

A third party can only work when the people actually want one. I'm sad to say, most of the people in the US don't want one, and don't want freedom either. They want to **** the other guy as much as possible for their own benefit. Now begins the slow process of increased government victimization over time of all people so eventually, ten or twenty years down the line, enough people will see the government and its special interest masters as their enemy, and then a third party will be viable. It will be viable because enough people won't give a **** about it's policies so much as they just want the existing parties off their ****ing backs.

So, sorry to say, we've got a long haul in front of us of significantly more bull****.

 

[EasyEJL]

I was more thinking 3rd party solely in house/senate/governor positions, but it could be the start of a larger movement

 

[Fastone]

I was more thinking 3rd party solely in house/senate/governor positions, but it could be the start of a larger movement

Or it could be much ado about nothing

 

[EasyEJL]

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:

 

[AE14]

I actually think we might see more indy candidates making a run as a "centrist" with greater success

 

[Vtaper]

If 3rd party voters and candidates want to be taken seriously and actually influence an election they should follow the Ron Paul method. Find the major party with the closest ideology to your own and get involved at the grass roots level.

How many of you have actually attended a BPOU? During the Pres. nominations the Ron Paul supporters literally overwhelmed our local GOP caucuses; they showed up en mass and became delegates. Suddenly, the same people who have been picking the candidates for the last 30 years HAD to listen, and engage in debate on Pauls' Libertarian, Anti-War platform.

And the result? He took second in our vote, not to shabby. (BTW, I did not vote for him)

Now you cant change the system overnight but do you know what will happen if that keeps up? Some of those "behind closed doors" meetings might involve the old brass having to make concessions to the former 3rd party folks who had no voice. And eventually the former 3rd party candidate could have the nomination of a major party and win an election.

Or they can keep doing what there doing and get One half of One percent of the vote.

(and yes, I know all about Jesse Ventura, Ross Perot and Joe Lieberman, this post was about building from the grass roots level. Pointing out that well known, or wealthy people have beat the odds a few times in 225 years hardly proves a point)

 

[Fastone]

yeah, the republican getting elected in a state that is 3:1 registered democrats to republicans doesn't mean anything :crazy:

Didn't say it didn't mean anything, just stating that the total effect of this remains yet to be seen.

 

[CDB]

I was more thinking 3rd party solely in house/senate/governor positions, but it could be the start of a larger movement

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.

Most people don't want a third party. They still think the two majors can work somehow, and most of the people still fall for the 'wasted vote' fallacy because they've never bothered to think about it for more than two seconds and ask themselves what they actually gain by voting for a major party candidate with whom they disagree.

 

[CDB]

Or it could be much ado about nothing

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...

 

[CDB]

I actually think we might see more indy candidates making a run as a "centrist" with greater success

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.

 

[AE14]

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...

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.

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 dont disagree that the indys are no better, but this change hopefully will be slightly better. Not overly optimistic however.

 

[EasyEJL]

stop depressing me cdb I'm still optimistic that "hope and change" can work in the public's actual favor

 

[CDB]

stop depressing me cdb I'm still optimistic that "hope and change" can work in the public's actual favor

Hope...

and Change...

 

[dg806]

Hope...

and Change...

Now you're talking........the only hope/change we will ever see!

 

[RenegadeRows]

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.

 

[CDB]

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.

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.

 

[EasyEJL]

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.

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

 

[AE14]

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

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

 

[EasyEJL]

I think overall the only people who enjoy attack ads against your competition are those who are already in your party.

 

[DAdams91982]

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

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.

 

[AE14]

I would agree, the moderate dems were most certainly part of this without a doubt

 

[EESCHMan]

yeah, the republican getting elected in a state that is 3:1 registered democrats to republicans doesn't mean anything :crazy:

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.

 

[AE14]

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.

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.

 

[DAdams91982]

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?

If that is your implication, then Obama doesn't even agree with you.

 

[AE14]

I 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.

It is what we are going to see every few years. Bad leadership and then a change....Repeat cycle

 

[DAdams91982]

It is what we are going to see every few years. Bad leadership and then a change....Repeat cycle

Agreed, until a viable 3rd party crops up that isnt tainted, we are in a wash, rinse, repeat cycle.

 

[EasyEJL]

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.

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?

 

[CDB]

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****.

 

[RenegadeRows]

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.

Massachusetts actually has more registered "Independents" than any other party