Independents and Democrats just tended to stay home in 2009, they were disappointed by Obama and the bank bailouts.

We don't tend to have larger-than-life candidates.

I do have a big problem with her over her prosecution of the Fells Acres case.

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)

4. Two things, Manny.

Reply to MannyGoldstein (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:43 AM

Sep 2013

Okay, three things.

Coakley ran a lackluster campaign. (IMHO) She didn't do a good job of proving that she was worth Ted Kennedy's seat, and the vacation she took didn't help either. One can blame her campaign for that, but in the end she was the one taking the break when she should have been at the helm: full throttle forward.

She ran against a virtual unknown prettyboy that pretended to be JFK in one of his early commercials. The black and white Kennedy speech morphed into Scottie, and that alone made me hate him. What I hated even more though was at that point she should have shredded him a new one for using JFK to make himself look like a Kennedy; while he is pretty much the antithesis of the John or Ted.

He was a pompous ass and yet still managed to win a lead of 120,000 votes.

I would say that Massachusetts hasn't been kind to women candidates, but we do have Senator Warren.

Perhaps Coakley just didn't have what it takes, or she misjudged Scott Brown's ability to be a D-bag.

You might be able to say the same thing for Shannon O'Brien. I wasn't on her campaign, but I was on another at the time.

Perhaps when you run against a GOPig you have to realize that they are D-bags and will try to screw you over. Civil debate is a product of a bygone era.

So IF Coakley runs, she better come prepared with her A game. I can garantee you that Charlie Baker, who always looks like the jerk-school boy caught without his homework and lying about it, will lie his ass off and be just as big a D-bag as any GOPig. I'm sure he's been practicing a lot to do just that.

Okay, that was more than three things.

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)

5. One more

Reply to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #4)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 12:49 PM

Sep 2013

It was a special election held on Jan 19th with a low turnout.

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)

9. Yeah, Baker could be the type that appeals to Mass voters

Reply to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:06 PM

Sep 2013

So the Democrat may need to work hard.

But he's a health insurance guy, so there's a big opening to hammer the #%^* out of him.

TheCowsCameHome

(40,168 posts)

3. One of six announced candidates.

Reply to bigdarryl (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 08:41 AM

Sep 2013

It doesn't mean she'll win the primary. Or maybe she will.

The GOP has only one candidate so far.

I like having choices.

Don't you?

Craig234

(335 posts)

6. Choice

Reply to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #3)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 02:42 PM

Sep 2013

Making the issue choice is propagandistic.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing bad candidates.

When you go to the market, are you upset you don't have the choice to buy rotten meat and poisonous food also?

When you go to Disneyland, are you upset you don't have the choice to ride the unsafe, uncomfortable ride also?

When you go to buy a car, are you upset you don't have the choice to buy the one with ten times the pollution of others?

Trying to say a criticism of a candate is a bad thing because you want 'choice' is harmful spin.

Yes, we want choice.

And yes, we want to criticize the bad candidates.

What if Adolf Hitler were running? Do you criticize him, or do you criticize the critics on the grounds of 'don't you want choice?'