Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I voted in the Mass. Election last week and I can honestly tell you that Obama's name was not on the ballot.
The election was about Coakley, Brown and Joe Kennedy (no relation to "the Kennedys").
I spoke to many of my Massachusetts friends, neighbors and colleagues and most of them told me they did not like the way Coakley ran her campaign - she was arrogant and assumed the seat was hers. Their votes were a vote against Coakley with a message of "never take my vote for granted."
Brown specificly campaign that he would not vote fpor the healthcare bills in congress and Cloaky campign she would. She went from a 30% lead at first to lossing one of the sureest bets in politics. Even to the end many like the Boston Globe gace her a 10% lead at worse.But that means that Obama and congress had failed to sell the healthcare bills in one of the bluest of states that started long before she satrted to run. Its was their top piority remmeber.Why didn't they trust in the administration ;well looat what people saw as their resulst fromn spendign 758 billion in stimulus;a flop that only added up to massive debt.
The Rasmussen summary explicitly stated that the various correlations showed how complex this election was. They DID NOT say that it was "about Obama" and in fact the correlations to approval/disapproval of the governor were stronger than approval/disapproval of the President.
As for if Obama would win election in Massachusetts for any office at this time, depends largely on who he would be running against, and so predictions of his success or failure are pretty much pointless.
The election was not about the governor. Maybe it is you who should go back and read instead of trying to bring in an unrelated subject.
I didn't say the election was about the governor. Perhaps you need to work on your reading-comprehension skills. I said the Rasmussen analysis of the voting results showed a stronger correlation between voter satisfaction with the governor, than the correlation between voter satisfaction with the President. Since the Rasmussen analysis is the subject of this thread, it's not an unrelated subject.
I didn't say the election was about the governor. Perhaps you need to work on your reading-comprehension skills. I said the Rasmussen analysis of the voting results showed a stronger correlation between voter satisfaction with the governor, than the correlation between voter satisfaction with the President. Since the Rasmussen analysis is the subject of this thread, it's not an unrelated subject.
Comprehension? Maybe you should re-read the title and try to comprehend it instead of attempting to change it.
Comprehension? Maybe you should re-read the title and try to comprehend it instead of attempting to change it.
Question for you--in the title, what polling data is the OP referring to?
Answer, the Rasmussen polling data.
How, then, is it off-topic to refer to the Rasmussen polling data, which does NOT say that "It was about Obama", and DOES say that the correllation between dissatisfaction with the governor of Massachusetts and a Republican vote was stronger than the correllation between dissatisfaction with the President and a Republican vote.
I know this may be a stretch for you, but challenging the conclusion of the OP's reading of the Rasmussen polling data is NOT off-topic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.