Coakley v. Brown: A contest between the candidates or the parties? (voters, campaign)

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Some say that Brown is doing well in the polls because voters are rejecting Democrats and President Obama. Others say that he's doing well because Coakley has run a terrible campaign.

Which theory is more correct?

[FinkieMcGee]

As far as Democratic candidates go Coakley is pretty terrible.

If she loses and Brown is elected to the Senate he's going to slip in the same way Romney slipped in as the Governor. The other candidate was so outrageously terrible that Democratic voters are at best apathetic about their candidate.

It's probably better this way since Coakley would snag the seat for the rest of her life if she got in for the next 2 years. MA can do better.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by FinkieMcGee

It's probably better this way since Coakley would snag the seat for the rest of her life if she got in for the next 2 years. MA can do better.

Interesting point. I forgot that this was election is just to fill the next two years.

[tropolis]

its always about the candidate for the most part.

just ask yourself this question when you try and make these state races a national thing.

would obama lose to scott brown if he was running in place of coakley? obviously no.

would obama lose to christie if he was running in place of the corrupt jon corzine? not a chance in hell.

the candidates are ****, has little to do with Mr. Obama and almost all to do with the crap candidates the dems are putting up.

[CaseyB]

Originally Posted by tropolis

would obama lose to scott brown if he was running in place of coakley? obviously no.

BUT, we have a democratic governor who is wildly unpopular, so Martha Coakley has that baggage to deal with. Plus, in the last year, we have had another speaker of the house indicted, a state senator caught groping and assaulting women, another senator taking bribes by stuffing cash in her bra, and just recently, another senator caught leaving the scene after driving drunk (all democrats).

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by tropolis

its always about the candidate for the most part.

just ask yourself this question when you try and make these state races a national thing.

would obama lose to scott brown if he was running in place of coakley? obviously no.

would obama lose to christie if he was running in place of the corrupt jon corzine? not a chance in hell.

the candidates are ****, has little to do with Mr. Obama and almost all to do with the crap candidates the dems are putting up.

Excellent points, and a good way to "test" my question. Thanks.