Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Riot
Desperation? I don't care if he was a Cosmo centerfold. Now he wants to be famous by being a politician instead. Not unusual.
Coakley is certainly no Kennedy. Unimpressive. Brown is the typical mindless yapper of "conservative values" with no substance. Neither one can fill Kennedy's shoes. It would be a "lesser of two evils" vote for me.
It will all come down to what the weather is Tuesday - a minority party turnout outgunned 3-1 by a majority party that may or may not care who is in that seat. I do think the minority turnout will be there, the majority won't bother, and I suspect Brown will barely win.
If she loses, it's not that big a deal on a national level. At least not how the news orgs are framing this. Healthcare reform will still pass easily.
I think the GOP are making a huge mistake to make this a national issue "If she loses, it reflects negatively on Obama and healthcare" - because if she wins, they'll have to eat that in a terrible way.
|
i'm on your side but i think this analysis is off. it's a no lose for republicans. dems are spending money on a race they shouldn't have to.
republican's frame this as a referendum on obama and healthcare because there's no downside to that argument. if coakley eeks out a win, wednesday morning the headline is "massachusetts almost elected a republican", not "america endorses obama".
we're better off dealing in political realities and not repeating bush's error of exaggerating narrow victories into imagined political capital.
on the other hand, unlike you i think coakley's still more likely to pull off a too narrow win than actually lose.
if she doesn't, i'll change my opinion that healthcare is a lose/lose for democrats but it's a lesser loss pushing it through to accepting that the country isn't ready for this.