TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: Again, they are completely blind to the notion that it's not about the Coakley campaign, but rather it is a repudiation of policy. And that is why they are going to lose — because they refuse to acknowledge that they overreached and are out of step with the values of the nation.

This election isn't as much about liberal vs Conservative or even about the aproval or disaprovel of Obama or Obamacare.

Massachusetts is still a very liberal state. The people there have bought into Obamacare yerars ago. The one they fear though is a one party government. They do recognize that no good can come of the Democrats having absolute power. This is why they have voted for certain Republican Governors such as Romney and Weld. The chart here might prove interesting to some.

Ugh, Romney what a fool. Sorry, having Boston Flashbacks

Liberty wrote:Massachusetts is still a very liberal state. The people there have bought into Obamacare yerars ago. The one they fear though is a one party government. They do recognize that no good can come of the Democrats having absolute power. This is why they have voted for certain Republican Governors such as Romney and Weld. The chart here might prove interesting to some.

Yes, they bought into Obamacare, and now that they've had to live with it for a while, they don't like it one bit — which is why Brown is gaining traction in this Senate election.

If you want to compare apples to apples instead of oranges, look at their senate history, not their governors. With one exception, Massachusetts has elected democrat senators exclusively for the Class I seat since the election of David I. Walsh in 1926. The lone republican exception was Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., who served one term and lost his re-election bid to John F. Kennedy in 1953. Other than Lodge, Massachusetts has had democrat senators in the Class I seat for the past 83 years.

In the Class II senate seat, Massachusetts has had a liberal democrat in office since Paul Tsongas was elected in 1979 — or the past 30 years.

Since 48% of MA registered voters are Independents, and only 39% are democrats, Massachusetts is one state in which Independents truly do rule the roost. And those same Independents show a predilection for electing liberal senators from just one party — the democrat party — for at least 30 years now. So I'm not particularly buying the notion that they have a mistrust of a monolithic party, and that's what makes their support of Brown, and rejection of Obamacare so remarkable.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Liberty wrote:Massachusetts is still a very liberal state. The people there have bought into Obamacare yerars ago. The one they fear though is a one party government. They do recognize that no good can come of the Democrats having absolute power. This is why they have voted for certain Republican Governors such as Romney and Weld. The chart here might prove interesting to some.

Yes, they bought into Obamacare, and now that they've had to live with it for a while, they don't like it one bit — which is why Brown is gaining traction in this Senate election.

If you want to compare apples to apples instead of oranges, look at their senate history, not their governors. With one exception, Massachusetts has elected democrat senators exclusively for the Class I seat since the election of David I. Walsh in 1926. The lone republican exception was Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., who served one term and lost his re-election bid to John F. Kennedy in 1953. Other than Lodge, Massachusetts has had democrat senators in the Class I seat for the past 83 years.

In the Class II senate seat, Massachusetts has had a liberal democrat in office since Paul Tsongas was elected in 1979 — or the past 30 years.

Since 48% of MA registered voters are Independents, and only 39% are democrats, Massachusetts is one state in which Independents truly do rule the roost. And those same Independents show a predilection for electing liberal senators from just one party — the democrat party — for at least 30 years now. So I'm not particularly buying the notion that they have a mistrust of a monolithic party, and that's what makes their support of Brown, and rejection of Obamacare so remarkable.

The Federal Government was never as monlistic as it is today, or as monolistic as the State government when it has Democratic Governor. Edward Brooks was a pretty popular Senator from 67-79 in 66 the Demacrats had a very strong hold on the Federal Government, not to disimular to what we have today.

While I believe the whole of the U.S is undergoing a rebeleuos shift. What is hapening in Mass is a little more unique to this particular race, and I don't see Mass making that dramatic of a shift to the Red side. I do hope I'm wrong.