Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Why is everyone surprised that Brown won?

Here's a few good pieces on Martha Coakley's loss yesterday.  I hesitate to read too much into her loss as a national bellweather, but I suspect that the hacks and talking heads will play this up because it is easy and can fit into 30 second 'debates.'

Here's why I think Coakley lost:
1.  She was a bland and uninspiring candidate.
2.  She was way too quiet in December, when she could have set the tone of the election.
3.  Scott Brown had a lot of help in the last two weeks, and came off very well AFTER the debates had aired.  Most independent/undecided voters don't watch debates.  They are more easily influenced by ads and word of mouth, and tend to focus on a few small issues.

4.  Voters in Massachusetts have elected 3 Republican governors since 1989.  Is it that hard to believe that they wouldn't vote for a moderate like Brown?  (Ignoring the fact that he will now have to march lockstep with a Republican minority in the Senate that is much more conservative than the voters in Massachusetts envisioned when they voted for him.)

My favorite analysis came from my cousin:

"A year ago everyone and his sister was telling me to vote for obama, i didnt, now a year later those same people are telling me to vote for scott brown, i didnt, for gods sake you elected obama for change, he is one vote away from giving that to you and your trying to stop it...its not Washington that's f'd..its you!"

No comments: