Today in Massachusetts, voters are going to the polls for a special election for the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states, yet the latest poll shows Republican Scott Brown ahead of Democrat Martha Coakley by 9 percent. Brown has made this election about Obama and his policies by bringing up health care and the Democrats’ runaway spending at every campaign stop. He has repeatedly said that if elected, he will be the 41st vote to enable a Republican filibuster of the health care bill. This has resonated with the people in Mass and he has been consistently rising in the polls. To be fair, Martha Coakley has run a bad campaign, but the voters are clearly sending a message that the liberal policies of Obama are losing support… in Massachusetts of all places!
The way this race has played out is that a vote for Coakley is a vote for the health care legislation while a vote for Brown is a vote against the health care legislation. Polls have shown that about 51% of people in Mass are opposed to the current health care bill. Coincidentally, the latest poll shows Brown has about 52% of the vote. I think it is safe to say that those who are voting for Brown are probably the same people who are opposed to the health care bill. The logical conclusion as to why Brown is in the lead is that the people of Mass are fed up with what the Democrat controlled Congress has been doing. Because of this, they may (if the polls are right) do something they have not done in a long time… send a Republican to the Senate.
However, Democrats cannot admit this. It is impossible that the people of Massachusetts are choosing a Republican over a Democrat because they are upset with Obama’s liberal policies. Impossible! So it has to be something else.
Could they blame it on George Bush? Maybe, but that angle has been losing it’s appeal.
Could they throw Coakley under the bus and blame it on her bad campaign. Yes, and that probably will happen, but that still doesn’t fully make sense. Coakley has said she will vote for health care while Brown has vowed to vote against it. If the people where still supporting Obama and his policies, why would they vote for the candidate who is opposed to Obama’s agenda?
Could it be that the people are so angry at Republicans and their opposition to Obama, they are going to vote for the Republican? Yes! That’s it! Brilliant! That’s the reason. The people in Mass are so upset at Republican opposition to the President, they are going to vote to send a Republican to the Senate. I know it sounds crazy but Rep. Steny Hoyer, the Democrat majority leader in the House, said the same thing when asked why voters were so upset about what is going on in Washington. He said that voters were not angry at the liberal agenda being shoved down their throats but were angry because of the Republicans opposition. “I think what the public is angry about is they see, first of all, an opposition for opposition’s sake,” Hoyer told reporters.
In Hoyer’s opinion, voters aren’t mad about the unpopular health care bill or the shady deals made to advance it. No, they are mad at Republicans. So, Mr. Hoyer… if Brown wins today, it will be because the voters are angry at the Republicans, right? They are going to send another Republican to Congress to show how angry they are with the Republicans! Do Democrats realize how illogical they sound?
Related posts:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Soulhuntre, Forgotten Liberty. Forgotten Liberty said: Democrat logic about Scott Brown being in the lead in Massachusetts, "Voters are angry at Republicans!" http://bt.io/DRGt [...]
I think Coakley ran a bad campaign because she has no substance, other than your typical Democratic ideology. Liberals seem to be immune to logic and reason, derision is their preferred methodology.