Democratic voter reacts to the Martha Coakley campaign
-Headline of the day-
"Exit Survey Of Massachusetts Voters Confirms Lack Of Enthusiasm Among Progressives Hurt Coakley ."
Ooh, those Massachusetts voters are so pissed off about Barack Obama's socialist takeover of healthcare! If you ask anyone on the teevee today, that's what you'll hear. If you ask Massachusetts voters, however...
Well, not so much.
Turns out that Martha Coakley lost because her campaign was blowful. According to the report, she "did 'no outreach' to communities of color and neglected to do any advertising in the African-American or Hispanic media." She also blew energizing the youth vote and unmarried women.
People voting specifically about healthcare reform went pro-reform, not anti-. Exit polling shows "Forty-six (46%) of voters said their vote was mainly to show support for health care reform rather than to show opposition to it (35%)." In addition, only 38% said they were voting for Brown because they didn't like Obama. In fact, Independents -- who mostly threw the election to the Republican -- said they supported the president's policies by a majority of 53%. And Obama's approval rating among Massachusetts voters yesterday was 55%.
In short, the race was about Coakley and Brown, not Obama and healthcare reform.
But hey, it's so much easier to agree with Republicans who are pulling stuff out of their butt than to actually look at the facts. So the talking head shows are all doing their bobblehead routine.
Think you learn anything from watching TV news? Think again. (Think Progress)
-Today's classless response comes from...-
...Wingnut site RedState.com's Erik Erickson. In attempting to explain (read "spin") the Democrat's loss in the Massachusetts special election, Erickson blamed it all on the late Ted Kennedy.
"If Ted Kennedy had decided to resign, or retire, when he found out just how bad his health was, instead of wanting to be a martyr for the cause, the Democrats wouldn’t be in this position," he said. Why this is supposed to make any sense at all isn't exactly clear, but Erickson ran to his blog to back up the claim.
"In Massachusetts, Barack Obama’s unicorn of hope and [change] died under the weight of Ted Kennedy’s ego," he wrote. "The left gets angry when it is pointed out, but it is an objective fact."
For the record, "objective fact" means something you can actually prove, not some crazy horseshit you made up because an anchor asked you a question you couldn't answer honestly.
When he made his -- what the hell, let's be charitable and call it an "argument" -- on CNN, resident Democrat Paul Begala punched him in the face. Ok, so that only happened in my imagination.
"He gave every ounce of his energy until the day he died to try to represent the people of Massachusetts. And they loved him,” Begala actually said. “Campaigns matter and candidates matter, and Teddy Kennedy would have won today. I doubt Erick would even try to argue with that point. He would win in a landslide today."
It's good, but I like my version better. (Politico)
"Republicans say they want bipartisanship."
Yeah, that's how we got in this mess in the first place. (Salon)