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'd believe you except that NJ put a REPUBLICAN in the spot.
That's not popularity change....that's POLICY change...and it doesn't come that easy in heavily Democratic New Jersey.
News flash...NJ has voted Republican previously...Whitman two terms, so nice try.
Continue to live in your fantasy world outside of NJ, Christie knows as well as those Republicans who voted for Christie will also tell you, it had nothing to do with Obama. Which would explain why Christie has not and more than likely will not join the bandwagon of the "repeal" jibberish. 35% voter turnout does not = issue with Obama policies.
He is a smart guy. A smarter republican. Why? Because he knows tea party activists do not represent all the ideals that normal mainstream republicans hold dear. Brown is intelligent enough to put a corporate arm's length distance between himself and the what some might call tea party fringe people. Does it matter? Who knows, we'll have to wait and see. He might be Presidential material in 2012.
Again, Teabaggers nor the healthcare bill had NOTHING to do with NJ. New Jersey was a blow out yes, We blew Corzine out due to his inability to govern
I hate to dis democrats, but the people who voted brown were supposed to be independents, you know, the ones who could vote either way, dem or repub, so, I think we're probably going to see more and more of this in 2012, because our current president isn't necessarily getting an awful lot done, he's moving too slow to suit some voters.
The important thing to remember about all of this is............Scott Brown is sitting Ted Kennedy's seat insted of a democrat. I dont think scott brown is a real blow to the tea party movement. much a do about nothing, but we understand you have to try.
I hate to dis democrats, but the people who voted brown were supposed to be independents, you know, the ones who could vote either way, dem or repub, so, I think we're probably going to see more and more of this in 2012, because our current president isn't necessarily getting an awful lot done, he's moving too slow to suit some voters.
A key reason why Brown won was due to the fact Coakley ran a poor campaign and did not excite the base. The turnout in many of the Dem strongholds (Boston, Cambridge, the Berkshires) was quite poor. That is not going to happen in a year with a Presidential election at the top of the ticket.
A key reason why Brown won was due to the fact Coakley ran a poor campaign and did not excite the base. The turnout in many of the Dem strongholds (Boston, Cambridge, the Berkshires) was quite poor. That is not going to happen in a year with a Presidential election at the top of the ticket.
Coakley was a particularly terrible candidate. You can't win an election on entitlement.
Scott Brown might be the one Republican politician I respect now.
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.
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.
