Looks like Coakley is conceding.

[Cali Coug]

Unreal. She can't even wait until results are all in. What a truly terrible candidate. She didn't campaign, didn't bother with ads until the end, wondered aloud why she should "stand outside Fenway Park in the cold" to shake hands, and totally failed to inspire anyone or anything. She deserved to lose. It is still a surprising result, even as lousy as she was, simply because the state is so blue.

Oh well.

[MikeWaters]

Ummm, part of me is hoping that this is the only lesson the dems take away from this election. Because it will lead to their devastation, and a new crop of new GOPers to take their place.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Ummm, part of me is hoping that this is the only lesson the dems take away from this election. Because it will lead to their devastation, and a new crop of new GOPers to take their place.

Nothing could make me happier if they agree with Cali and ignore any other lesson.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Ummm, part of me is hoping that this is the only lesson the dems take away from this election. Because it will lead to their devastation, and a new crop of new GOPers to take their place.

If she had spent any significant effort at all campaigning and actually talking to the voters, this wouldn't have happened, so it is pretty hard to extrapolate much more than "she was awful" out of this.

Worse things have happened. It's a setback, but it moves Dems from the largest majority held by either party since the 1970s to the second largest majority held by either party since the 1970s.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If she had spent any significant effort at all campaigning and actually talking to the voters, this wouldn't have happened, so it is pretty hard to extrapolate much more than "she was awful" out of this.

Worse things have happened. It's a setback, but it moves Dems from the largest majority held by either party since the 1970s to the second largest majority held by either party since the 1970s.

You're completely correct, everybody is pleased with the Obama agenda and nobody is displeased. Coakley was a crappy candidate and those gubernatorial races recently won by the GOP mean nothing too.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're completely correct, everybody is pleased with the Obama agenda and nobody is displeased. Coakley was a crappy candidate and those gubernatorial races recently won by the GOP mean nothing too.

Exit polls in November showed Obama and his agenda was still quite popular with the electorate, so you are correct- those races had little to nothing to do with national issues.

I do expect Dems to lose some ground in the Senate and House this year slightly more than what is typical in normal midterm election swings (while still maintaining control of the House and Senate).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Exit polls in November showed Obama and his agenda was still quite popular with the electorate, so you are correct- those races had little to nothing to do with national issues.

I do expect Dems to lose some ground in the Senate and House this year slightly more than what is typical in normal midterm election swings (while still maintaining control of the House and Senate).

That's not what I've been reading. Obama is personally popular, not his agenda.

[Archaea]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/1...ama/index.html

Here's somebody who doesn't think Obama's politics are popular any more. Maybe she's the lone conservative at CNN, I dunno.

I like this part:

The choices are bad: Give up on reform and look like a disorganized, weak majority. Or push through reform and look like a corrupt, desperate and arrogant majority.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/1...ama/index.html

Here's somebody who doesn't think Obama's politics are popular any more. Maybe she's the lone conservative at CNN, I dunno.

I like this part:

There is nothing corrupt about a party with 59 Senate votes (51 required to pass a bill, or even 50 plus the VP) and 256 in the House (218 required to pass a bill) actually passing a bill which they campaigned heavily on and which got them elected in the first place.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That's not what I've been reading. Obama is personally popular, not his agenda.

Are you talking about in Virginia and New Jersey, or nationally now? If NJ and Virginia, his agenda was popular at the time of the election (which is why I say those elections aren't signs of anything nationally, anymore than NY-23).

Look- you want to make an argument about trends in elections since November and say it proves Dems are in real trouble. That is just a bad argument. If you don't care about NY-23 or know anything about it, you shouldn't be making that argument as that race comprises 20% of all gubernatorial or congressional elections since November. Another 20% was a Dem election in California. 20% was Virginia, 20% NJ, and 20% Mass today. That isn't very much data to look at, particularly when Dems took 2 of 5 (losing 2 they should have historically won- NJ and Mass, and winning one they shouldn't have- NY).

Yes, poll numbers are down (they generally fall for the party in power, particularly in midterm election years). That's fine, and within the norm. As I said, Dems still have 59 Senate votes, so if they can keep their heads without freaking out from the silly noise of the pundits, health care will still get done (which is what I care about).