What does Scott Brown's win mean?

My observations.

a) Scott Brown ran a great campaign. His messaging was well done. He ran successful on the tradition security and lower taxes ideals. He won the debates.

He portrayed the "everyman" image. He worked very hard. He made it clear he cared about voters. And... he pulled the neat trick of speaking to independent moderates at the same time he was reaching out to tea party conservatives (i.e. two contradictory groups).

b) Martha Coakley ran a horrible campaign. She ran as the front runner. She couldn't of done more to show she thought she would win simply because she was the Democratic candidate. She was arrogant, detached and aloof.

The most telling story to me on the race was how she reacted when she was told Scott Brown was shaking hands in the cold outside Fenway Park. Coakley's response was "Why should I do that?". She was meeting with political VIPs at the time. This story was illustrative of how she saw the voters... she acted as if she didn't need to work for their votes.

Then there were the stupid gaffes-- calling Curt Schilling (the Red Sox pitcher famed for heroing pitching through pain in the "bloody sock" game) a Yankees fan; her strange comments about how the Taliban wasn't in Afganistan, and a poorly thought out (and obviously rushed) attack ad which misspelled the word "Massachusetts".

c) I don't think the MA health care plan has anything to do with anything. In fact, I haven't heard any one of us who doesn't think this is silly.

d) The "people's chair" line was brilliant and reinforced the arrogance of the Coakley campaign and the Massachusetts Democrats thinking that they would waltz through this thing.

e) There are people in Massachusetts who support Obama who voted for Brown because he ran, and is seen by many, as an "independent". The arrogance of Coakley turned a lot of middle voters to Brown. How this "independent Republican" thing will work out (i.e. how Brown will act once in office) will be interesting to see.

I looked Scott Brown and Scott Brown's win in the dictionary to answer your question. Found nothing... yet.

Hopefully the Democrats will see this as an opportunity to straighten up.
My "yeah right" side says the Dems will just dig in deeper and not try to make corrections, rather they'll get pugnacious and defensive and defend their stand while they go down in flames.

ebrown, Thanks for your contribution; exactly what I was looking for.

In central Pa, (the ALabama of our Commonwealth), the win is being portrayed as Obamas Gettysburg.
Im not certain but from the crap I read about Coakley, who's actually in charge in Mass so that such a douche bag candidate would even be forwarded ? . Is she the Dem equivalent of Sarah Palin? (dumb and ill informed)

Brown ran mostly on security and the fact that noone in the Obama camp seems to be listening to voters wishes. (eg, consider the trials of terrorists in NYC. WEVeryone I know from NYC has said to me that they are still affected by 9/11 so why keep jamming it to us. This apparently resonated up in New ENgland.


Remember, Browny is the senator whose seat if up for election in 2012. so, hes got 2 years to show that hes a real populists (as hes prtrayed himself, hell I even hear he garaged his lamborghini)

This is an awfully vague statement-- what the heck do you mean by "straighten up"? I think everyone agrees that "making corrections" is a good thing. Although, if you spelled out which "corrections" you are suggesting, you might find that not many people agree with you on specifics.

Why shouldn't the Democrats "defend their stand"? (I agree they should avoid the going down in flames bit).

The Democrats weren't elected to do nothing. The American people have given them a 58 - 41 majority in the Senate and a sizeable majority in the House on issues like healthcare, and civil rights, and diplomacy, and you fear they will dig deeper?

With the Republicans willfully blocking everything (and saying so), I think "pugnacious" would be a great thing.

Part of the Democrats problem is that they are chasing this mythical "bipartisan" thing-- trying to play nice with people who keep poking them in the eye. Bush had a much smaller majority in Congress-- and he was able to ram through pretty much what he wanted.

If by "straighten up" you mean "grow a pair", then I wholeheartedly agree with you.

What does it mean,
when there is a big GREEN HAND on the page?

It means you've posted here, or voted it a thumbs up. Unless you are referring to Brown's posts. The big green thumb up is his avatar.

Seems the Democrats in the Senate are not going to delay confirmation, nor try to rush the health care business through before Brown is seated. Smart move. They seemed very close to a politically fatal trap.

Because they're defending their stand stupidly-- for example the agreement with Ben Nelson and Nebraska.

I agree with you on that count, Gala. But the Nelson agreement wasn't pugnacious, quite the contrary-- it was the unwillingness to take Nelson out back and beat him until he came around. That's what the Republicans would have done.

It means I am EBrown and I approve this message.

I know what you're saying about the word pugnacious, however, in this case they were being pugnacious in the sense of winning the fight at the great cost of political capital. They gave up a lot with that one.

It may mean nothing other than a not-very- attractive, no- lips- woman running in Mass. would have problems, as women have had in Mass. politics anyway.

OR

That Mass. voters wanted to send the message that they do not want and will not pay for another political/government layer in their health care program.

OR

Powers that be conducting "internal" exit polls have found Brown's message on terrorists and bank loans very appealing to Mass. voters.

In any light, he is refreshingly real and the family is stunning. We will see more of him, for sure.

- Jean Giraudoux

None of them really needs a beating; we must vote them all out of office to cure what ails Washington DC.

I hope its a wake up call for the stupid democratic congress and Obama!

Agree with you completely. When her candidacy was first announced, the election was laCoakley's to lose. She lost it all right.

you just made a not so refreshingly superficial assessment of the situation. what does Coakly's looks have to do with her shortfalls as a campaigner? she may be unattractive because of her arrogance, but her physical looks? please.