Cali Coug |
01-22-2010 03:10 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
(Post 309426)
Not exactly. Exit polls aren't the only thing that indicate the electorate's mood. Issue polling during the run-up to the election, and what the candidate actually campaigns on are key indicators as to why people vote the way they do. If you're limiting yourself to exit polls only to gauge the electorate, it's no wonder you've been so off.
|
In that case, NJ and VA were definitely not "national" races.
Quote:
Um, lots of people are saying she can't right now, including her. "Cowardice and stupidity" is a vague weasel answer. Let's hear something concrete. How come Pelosi had her votes before, and now suddenly she doesn't?
|
Um, no. Pelosi has not said that. You should read the rest of her quote. The biggest trouble faced by Pelosi isn't the House, it is the Senate. She has said all along the Senate bill isn't acceptable to the House. The Senate is now in the position of having a hard time amending their bill through regular legislative processes, and Pelosi can't live with what is on the table. So the Senate bill needs to be changed. It hasn't changed yet, so she doesn't have the votes yet. Reconciliation provides the avenue for changing the Senate bill and fixing Pelosi's problem. As for statements from some House members, their problem is cowardice and stupidity. They are overreacting to the punditry's noise that MA was a referendum on Obama and health care, despite the fact there is zero evidence in support of that contention.
Quote:
I say MA was a nationalized referendum on Obama and on health care, and once the Dems saw the results, they decided keeping their jobs in November was more important to them than loyalty to Pelosi. They don't want to go home and face constituents, angry at having been ignored, or to hand a fat election issue to their opponents. If you disagree, fine, but let's hear some real political analysis.
|
You can say that, but there is no evidence to support your argument. Provide some evidence, not just a flat statement.
As for evidence supporting my contention that she lose because she was a lousy candidate:
She started up 30 points. If this was a referendum on Obama or healthcare, there is no possible chance public opinion changed to the tune of 35 points in one month, particularly since polls in MA indicated support overall for the health care bill. She wouldn't have ever had a 30 point lead to start with if this was truly a reaction to Obama or health care.
She went on vacation during the primary and took voters for granted. They didn't appreciate it.
She said multiple stupid things regarding the Red Sox and, while that shouldn't be the basis for anyone's vote, it got her a lot of negative publicity.
Obama still polls very favorably in MA.
|