Yeah, we've seen your peers:
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0093_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0074_large.jpg

your combining two concepts/posts. You said very clearly that the Brown win was not a reflection on Dems or Obama, the data draws a different conclusion, you decide.

The points I noted where key points Brown was running on, he was very clearly running on these. the poll data does not address it, however i would infer that less taxes = less government and that was clearly outlined in the poll.

As Far as Dems dropping like flies, I dont know of any high profile Reps dropping out, my ignorance, but the headlines the past few weeks have been filled with dems - Dodd, Dorgan, Kennedy, Bayh, . Bayh is not leaving saying he is to old, he is leaving saying things suck and I want out. I have to say that if you think this has nothing to do with Brown's win, the tea party movement or anti-Obama sentiment. Your nuts. Look at how bad this was for Repubs during the Bush years but you didnt see this kind of Exodus.

I did?

Bayh is leaving to distance himself from Obama's mess.
He will be Obamas opponent come 2012 and may just run as an Independent.

from Johnny D -
"Also, you (and just about everyone else) have pretty consistently made the Scott Brown vote a "Vote against the Democrats" and I disagree."

The poll data suggests otherwise.

Now you're the one combining two different concepts/posts.

Bayh is leaving because he is a moderate in a disgustingly polar Congress. If he tries to reach across the aisle, he had to deal with the fallout from the more senior, and more liberal, Democrats. If I remember correctly, Bayh has the most votes against Obama of all Dems.

He would fail miserably in a run for President though. The way politics are run now, the White House isn't made for a moderate. He probably wouldn't hold up well through the Primaries.

We need more people in Congress like him - somewhat middle of the road representatives that aren't afraid of working with the other side. Right now, the House and Senate are a pathetic political analogy of the Red Sox and Yankees.

Good analogy of the mess.

I thought Obama was going to bring great unity?

I agree, it does seem obvious...

From your report...

So it looks like the biggest issue was health care, but Coakley actually won support from those voters....

Here's the stat that I find interesting.

Considering that Brown won with 51.8% to Coakley's 47.1%, there are plenty of stats that can explain the results.

Personally, I think the idea of those liberal Mass voters rejecting "Kennedy's seat" is a bit over rated.

-spence

More importantly he could win his next election easily.

What should be troubling for the DNC is that he announced his plans without informing them first. He wanted out...

-spence

I love it...

RIJIMMY sez = the data draws a different conclusion

RIJIMMY sez = the poll data does not address it

So the facts are clear, yet to make his point he relies on his inference :rotf2:

-spence

I was too distracted by his inaccurate reference to my position that I missed his comical inference that taxes = less government. So, as long as the government cuts taxes, they should be entitled to regulate every facet of my life?

They already do. Join the "tea party". Your a better fit then you'll admit

Are you a member?

-spence

Sure, didn't you see me in the pics. JD posted

G.W. Bush's greatest accomplishment was the polarization and division of the people and legislature of the United States. He used it as a tool to get elected, but the division lives on as a cancer that prevents anything positive from getting accomplished in America. So much distrust and hatred has dragged us down to an impotent blustering, fumbling, incompetent caricature of what we once were. Negative is the daily norm, two negatives make a nothing. It's high time to just knock it the hell off and concentrate on the job at hand. That job includes us all. Who wants to live in a country with very rich vs. very poor? Other peoples failure does not make your success greater. In fact, it is to the contrary.

How old was GW when he started this polarization? I've been around for a long time, and, as far as I can remember, the legislature has always been polarized. As for the people, when have Democrats and Republicans not hated each other (politically)? I recall my Democrat co-workers hating GW's daddy, who was kind of a nice guy, even saying and making signs at rallies that shouted "Nuke Bush!"

GW Bush was a Unitifier...not a Dividifier...:uhuh:

:rotflmao:

From what I've read, the Clinton Impeachment is what ratcheted up the level of polarization to what it is now.

I think you could be right Joe but if I recall the Dems effed over GB1 pretty good too.
Remember the good old days, when a lie "no new taxes" could bring down a President.

Don't be too concerned, there was an article yesterday on the front page of the Tea Party website which alluded to the goal of impeachment.

Who was the repub. famous for his dirty tactics who ended up dying of brain cancer about 7 years ago???

I just shook my head when one of the complaints/examples of hypocrisy voiced by Bayh was of the 7 repubs. who co-sponsored the recent deficit reduction bill and then actually voted against it.

Reminds me of Obama voting for Bush's budgets and then saying he inherited Bush's deficit. Especially when the Dems controlled things during those years.:smash:

F'in stupidity, if you and Johnny cant follow a logical discussion, dont waste my time. Brown had issues he was running on..period. The poll has data...period. Some of Browns running points were addressed as key MA issues in the poll, others were not. I noted which where addressed and which were not. Has nothing to do with my opinion. I clearly separated them. as I said twice, now 3 TIMES. you draw your own conclusion. the data is there......

I don't think it's a matter of stupidity with JD and Spence. Spence just likes to play devil's advocate. You know he's actually not all that liberal. He likes a good debate and when proven wrong, he stops visiting the thread. It happens all the time, when he runs out of ways to spin his argument.
With JD, he just can't accept when he's been proven wrong. If he sees that someone's getting the upper hand, he makes personal attacks on their intelligence. I guess when you think you're the smartest person in the room, you feel entitled to act like it. Wait a second, I jsut realized that describes our current President to a tee.:rotf2:

This is utter nonsense.

I have demonstrated a consistent ability to keep mindless political threads going longer than perhaps anyone else on the site :fury:

-spence

Bush 41 made a massive flip flop and couldn't spin it as he had no charisma...you can't say the Dem's were out of line here, the issue was with the voters.

From what I've read the difference in tone started in the House under Clinton. Certainly there has always been intense partisanship, but pre-Clinton Republicans and Democrats were often friends and would go have a drink after a good fight on the floor.

Today, your party leadership will chastise you for fraternizing with the enemy.

I blame Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich.

-spence

The irony of the above if amusing. I've yet to make a personal attack that wasn't in reciprocation. I'm sure it'll be easy to quote some of my posts here out of context to 'prove' the contrary. Then there is you who chooses to chime in and make consistent personal attacks and criticisms of me that are completely unprovoked. I guess when you're arrogant, you feel entitled to act however you see fit.

A logical discussion? You mean make a point, then find a poll and say that it supports your point, and then say that the poll doesn't address everything and we should draw our own opinions? But then "less taxes = less government" for some reason so the poll did include everything.

However, it all comes down to your original point:
...which I still disagree with.

The poll data demonstrates correlation but gives no suggestions for causation. As such, the poll data suggests the tendencies of voters but not the reason behind their votes.