Thomas Lindaman discusses the election of Republican Scott Brown as Senator of Massachusetts and its impact.
First: The one and only reason Coakley lost was because of her terrible campaign. Now, let's proceed...
Winners
- Scott Brown: This one's self-explanatory. Brown ran a stellar campaign, appealing to the spirit of the age with his common man approac h and promise to vote against the ObamaCare bill still in Congress.
The healthcare issue didn't exist when Coakley was 30 points ahead? Too bad the majority of Americans are in favor of healthcare reform. Cutesy soundbites like "ObamaCare" ain't gonna change that.
- The TEA Party movement: The victory that didn't come in NY-23 came in Massachusetts. No matter how much the Left ridicules the TEA Party movement,
The Teabaggers didn't exist when Coakley was 30 points ahead? The Teabaggers are ridiculed because they are not a grassroots organization, they are proven idiots, and they are led by people like this:
it's clear from post-election interviews that there are more TEA Party people than the Left cares to admit. That should tell them that Brown's victory is a validation of the TEA Party.
It's clear from people who can actually count, that there are less Teabaggers than the Right care to admit. And I'm not even referring to that time you guys blatantly lied about your numbers. You guys couldn't even bring together more than 600 hicks in Nashville. NASHVILLE, for Christ's sake! "Post election interviews"? That's a valid source? Does that mean that you admit John Kerry won the 2004 presidential election? You DID see the exit polls, correct?
- Conservative House Democrats: It's unusual to think of a Republican winning helping Democrats, but in this case it works. With Brown's potential vote against ObamaCare, conservative Democrats in the House can make the argument that ObamaCare won't be able to pass by traditional means. That means they could vote their conscience with the House version instead of voting with their party in the hopes of being reelected.
Again, there were no health care issues when Coakley was 30 points ahead? Actually, the Conservative Democrats should all just become Republicans. While it's understandable how suicidal it is to be a Republican right now, they may as well stop pretending. That's good advice for Libertarians and "Conservative Independentstm" too.
Losers - Martha Coakley: Although she was hand-picked by the Kennedy family to take Ted's seat, Coakley ran a laughable campaign.
She campaigned? For the first time in this article, Lindaman is correct. A laughable campaign. THAT is why Coakley lost.
Hard to believe that she was up by 30 points at one time. Her campaign's meltdown will be the source of much discussion within Leftist circles, mainly to protect President Obama from the fall-out.
Obama wasn't president when Coakley was 30 points ahead?
- Barack Obama: In the short term, Brown's election means health care reform and other Obama initiatives are threatened. In the long term, Obama's inability to deliver victory in three high profile races (New Jersey, Virginia, and now Massachusetts) will be a reflection on his bank-ability as a Campaigner-In-Chief. If the 2010 midterm elections become a referendum on Obama, more and more Democrats will distance themselves from the President, making him seem more and more like a lame duck.
Again, Obama wasn't president when Coakley was 30 points ahead?
You guys know damn well Obama isn't to blame for this, and that health care reform isn't the reason for it either. Nonsense: People want an improved health care system whether you bloggers (including the ones that are leeching off your parents' health insurance) like it or not.
- Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid: Brown's election throws a spotlight on Pelosi and Reid's failure to deliver a workable health care reform bill last year. In their attempts to bribe and bully their respective houses of Congress into voting for ObamaCare, they "forgot" the art of diplomacy and preferred to hammer through a fundamentally flawed bill with the promise that it could be "fixed" later. Here's a tip: if you know it's a bad bill, pushing it through won't make it any better.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid wasn't around when Coakley was 30 points ahead?
You guys say "No" to everything, so enough about "bipartisanship." What the Dems need to do is finally grow a pair and steamroll all over you guys. 
- the Kennedy family: There was once a time when a Kennedy supporting someone in Massachusetts meant a guaranteed victory. With the Kennedy family's support of Coakley, though, no victory was to be had. This is a sign that the Kennedy name is no longer a force in Massachusetts politics, possibly even national politics. And the sad thing: it is a self-inflicted wound.
Brown was a guy who quoted JFK in his television advertisements and was all but shunned by the Republican Party when it came to support and money.
Take 'Em and Pick 'Em - the Republican Party: At this point, I'm not sure how the Republican Party will react to the Brown victory after the euphoria of the victory wears off. If they look solely at the Senate makeup and don't consider how Brown won, their chances in the midterm elections will be negatively impacted. Brown's victory can be used as a blueprint for other Republican victories, but only if the party leadership recognizes it.
Keep hoping for bad campaigning on the other side, in other words.
- the Democrat Party:
The fact Lindaman calls it the "Democrat Party" proves he's not an Independenttm.
Brown's victory should be a wake-up call to the party. The tactics they used served not to discourage support for Brown, but discourage support for Coakley. They simply can't rely on attacking an opponent as a "teabagger" because there are a number of people who actually agree with the TEA Party movement from all walks of life. With a growing number of Independents willing to vote for a Republican or a conservative, the Democrat brand may not be as strong as it was back in 2006 and 2008.
- third parties: With the rise of the TEA Party movement, there has been a lot of talk about the possibility of third parties rising in popularity and what it means to the two major parties. Brown's victory may give third parties reason to pause. After all, if they can find a Republican, conservative, or Independent candidate that can support and be satisfied, there may not need to be such a powerful move towards third parties. Then again, it may be just the motivation they need to step up and make a better argument for their causes.
Sure, the Republicans made gigantic strides here - backwards. But as long as they continue to think they have the 2010 elections all sewn up and believe that 2012 is a guaranteed win for the presidency, I'm fine with that. On the bright side, Joe Lieberman loses his bizarre throne. He's now 100% irrelevant, and made himself very unpopular with Connecticut voters with his recent asshattery. And now it's all for nothing. People didn't vote for Scott Brown because he was Republican. He all but called himself an independent in his ads. People voted for Scott Brown because Coakley did her best to offend voters. Calling a Red Sox player a Yankees fan? Going on vacation in the middle of a short campaign? Misspelling the state's name in an ad?
She cocked up this race about as bad as the Teabaggers cocked up New York 21.
The Scott Brown situation at least clarifies further something that's already blatantly obvious: Scott Brown is a Birther. You guys are rooting for a Birther. Just like you're rooting for Palin, a Creationist.
You guys are supporting proven morons, and are proud of it.
