Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Scott Brown wins!


So the Washington Post is tweating that Martha Coakley has called Scott Brown to concede the race. Now if only she showed that personal touch with the voters over the past six weeks...


So in a sense Scott Brown has already won. He shook up the complacent, take-voters-for-granted, uber-liberal establishment in this state like a once in a lifetime perfect storm.

Back in my days as a nationally ranked karate competitor we called it "fighting not to lose": A highly-ranked, well-known competitor fighting some unknown upstart knew they could rely on the judges to give them the benefit of the doubt on any exchanges, so they could safely somewhat coast.

Thus it all came down to how you define "somewhat coast." Martha Coakley went into a complete stall after winning the democratic nomination and made the biggest mistake in the history of competition: underestimating your opponent.

While at the same time arousing the normally complacent voters by taking them for granted.

Obviously Scott Brown will not win the People's Republic of Amherst (even with my vote and that of my wife.) But Amherst is out of touch with the rest of the state--except of course for Cambridge--so it should be interesting...very interesting.


Anonymous said...

whatever you say dan rather

LarryK4 said...

No, it's what the people say.

I report, you decide.

Anonymous said...

Aw Teddy you fat dead slob...

Bush in 2012 said...

To recap: "In a sense..." Scott Brown will win for winning and win for losing. And this is the best punditry conservative Amherst has to offer?

Shouldn't you be out stalking voters/getting out the vote?

Anonymous said...

I heard on the radio that Scott Brown wants babies killed, and supports the raping of women, so I voted for Kennedy.

Seriously though, Coakley lost my vote with her vicious attack ads, so I voted 3rd party.

LarryK4 said...

AS my punditry pointed out, he will not win in this town--not even close--so maybe I should be out SUPPRESSING the vote.

Anonymous said...

My guy Capuano would have done better than this, but he had some fire about him.

From before the primaries, I got a strong sense of entitlement from her, that she was going to win the election by divine right.

For the best expression of the pathos of this, see Jon Stewart at www.thedailyshow.com and click on the video "Mass Backwards". Hilarious stuff once you stop crying.

Rich Morse

Anonymous said...

Oh-oh, I'm beginning to see where this is going:

"She lost in Massachusetts because she's a woman."


Rich Morse

Xenos said...

I don't think being a woman helped. But the loss (if it is a loss for her) can't be chalked up to bigotry when there is a clear proximate cause - she did not campaign, did not get out there, did not make the sale.

This campaign was hers to lose, and she lost it. Even if she wins, I will switch from supporting her to supporting a Capuano primary. No way she can be trusted to get it done.

Anonymous said...





LarryK4 said...

Yeah, it certainly looks that way. (now I'm starting to see the value in Twitter.)

Anonymous said...

We have woman mayors in Northampton and Holyoke. We have three women on Amherst's Select Board. Working class and Catholic men voted for Hilary Clinton in the Democratic primaries in droves. Women have been running and winning elective office in America for decades. I remember Jane Byrne kicking the daylights out of the incumbent Mike Bilandic in 1979 for Mayor of Chicago.

The "women can't win in Massachusetts" dog won't hunt, and it's insulting to those of us Y chromosomes that try to evaluate candidates fairly. This candidate took a Caribbean vacation in the middle of the campaign, for God's sake. She thought that she was inevitable and the voters picked up on that.

Rich Morse

LarryK4 said...

And let's not forget Czar Anne Awad.

Jimmy D said...


Now let's hope it wasn't all for naught.

A83 said...


Capuano was my guy too. I guess I don't know you as well as I imagined.

Coakley 84%
Brown 15%

Coakley 77%
Brown 22.5%

Amherst loves Coakley, Williamstown less so.

Me? I wrote-in Elizabeth Warren.

Narda said...

She ran a lousy campaign, against a Mitt Romney ringer. I'm disgusted with this state, and if there was a better place to go...I'd leave it for the Republican crows.

Ed said...

Why did the National Democrats let Coakley run out of money? I say this shows the legitimacy of GWB's claim that Saddam Hussain had WMDs.

The RNC, RNSC and mASSgop are in bed (often literally) with the Dems. So the Dems knew what the Republcan establishment knew (much as Bush knew what Saddam knew) -- and much as Saddam didn't know he didn't have the WMDs he thought he had, the GOP neither knew Brown had a chance nor wanted him to win.

It was Laura Ingal and Howie Carr, talk radio and the internet that won this one. And this is going to make the Baker campaign look really interesting because conservatives are now empowered -- we can win OUTSIDE OF THE mASSgop establishment/organization.

But back to the WMDs -- how many of you thought that Brown had a chance? You only knew what the GOP did, much as Bush only knew what Saddam did....

Anonymous said...

Narda: can't Democrats come up with better ways to whine about losing elections? "I'm going to Canada" -- we heard that over and over in 2000 and 2004. Anybody ever actually move there? No.

If you want to go to a better state than Massachusetts, go for it! There are plenty of states with less corrupt state government, less crippling taxes, and better schools. Unfortunately for you, they're all chock-full of Republicans. Wonder why that is?

Narda said...

To gutless anon: Like I intimated...if I could find a better place. Personally, there seems to be an inverse ratio at work when it comes to Republicans and intelligent conversation. :)

Anonymous said...


The only better place for you is anywhere outside your own head.

Now, hit the prozac, hard.

Narda said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"Amherst is out of touch with the rest of the state--except of course for Cambridge"

Amherst & Cambridge, you mean the highest concentration of Noble Prize winners and other great minds in the nation?