What happened?

Of course the responsibility lies with her in the end. But any of these consultants will tell you, you don't use your 20 point advantage to broadcast your opponent's name all over the airwaves. Talk to any of these guys two weeks ago they would have said do what you're doing. If she had a fault it was to be too deferential to the Democratic national agenda... which of these consultants told her to run against Washington two weeks ago??? They were all blindsided because they lied to themselves about Deeds in VA and Corzine in NJ. Now they go on deluding themselves. Obama took the independents because he opposed war, not because these independents made a huge turn towards traditional Democratic programs.

Democrats: small-scale middle-class prosperity is what we need, not dramatic new programming from Washington. Republicans: nobody is asking you to start two more wars.

As disappointed as I am in the result, the political junkie in me admires a candidate who was busting his butt even when his own national party had written him off.

Scott Brown may have been pushed over the top by a lot of national money and support, and perhaps some scare ads and messages misconstruing the health care debate, but he started eating into Coakley's huge lead with old fashioned retail politics. He also won over voters by being upbeat, friendly, and personable.

Martha Coakley ran like a candidate expecting to win without sweating it. She never defined her candidacy, and when she started losing her lead she could not recover the momentum. She never made a connection to the vast majority of voters, either by message or by dint of personality. Ultimately, people didn't like her.

It was a rare perfect storm for the Massachusetts GOP.

stayed home, because they just didn't care enough. I don't really buy this idea of a sophisticated MA electorate sending some kind of coherent message to Washington. The same old assortment of bigots, crackpots, and rich people who voted for Bush twice came out to give Obama and the "liburals" the finger. It was a great day for those dark, frustrated characters who post the variety of anonymous comments that sometimes get removed from Boston.com and for that elite and perpetually aggrieved class of people whose most serious perceived hardship comes from the annual anguish of having to pay taxes. I hope that all the effusive butt-kissing of Brown and fabricated tales of some kind of radical, communal conversion go away after a respectful interlude of about 24 hours.

This was never the "bluest" state in the union (a term I have put in quotes because, like so much else in the political discussion, is an oversimplification of the characterization it attempts to make).

Many people like myself, who are regularly and wrongly characterized as liberals, are given that label because of what we believe with respect to a small number of the so-called "cultural", "social" or "wedge" issues. My beliefs on those issues generally arise from a libertarian streak, not a liberal one. I am generally a fiscal conservative (although I routinely advocate for more money for what I believe are core govermental functions, e.g., construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure, public safety and education), but not militantly so like the many Tea Party extremists (whom I believe are using the banner of fiscal conservatism to cover substantially more nefarious beliefs and objectives).

I think that many have missed a big reason why Ted Kennedy was routinely sent back to Washington. It was not because the electorate shared all of his beliefs. Many voted for him because it was in the state's interest because he had amassed a huge amount of power in the Senate and could steer lots of federal dollars to Massachusetts.

While not liking or disliking Senator-elect Brown to any significant degree yet, I am very concerned about how he, a very junior member of the minority, is going to fare on that score. It is interesting to note that even with Kennedy in office, Massachusetts still sent much more money to Washington than it got back (as of 2004, it got back $.77 for each $1 sent - and that was WITH the Big Dig). I am having a difficult time believing that ratio is about to improve, which leads me to what might be the ultimate irony of the election yesterday: Brown won on the backs of people who were either tea partiers or sympathize with at least some of their overt beliefs. The irony is that most of the people who subscribe to that movement hail from states that are net beneficiaries of Massachusetts's largesse. I will be watching my mail to see if the thank you note arrives.

In a Mass Democratic Congress that has been rife with corruption for years, this was the electorate saying "enough". Coakley just reinforced all of the negative perception that Mass voters have of their Democratic leaders, aloof, out of touch and elitist. Scott Brown, for all of his myriad (and dangerous)flaws, worked his ass off. He used the playbooks of both Bush (regular guy) AND Obama (voter's frustration) to bring it home. Once Mass voters see how much of an empty suit he is, all the Dems have to do is field a strong enough candidate and in 2 years Brown is toast.

I think Martha Coakley got caught with her pants on the ground, pants on the ground. She was lookin' like a fool with her pants on the ground.

From a Thursday New York Times editorial:

The Democrats had an exceptionally weak candidate in Massachusetts, but the results call into question their tactical political competence. The party now has less than 10 months to get it right before the midterm elections, when they are in danger of losing more seats in the House and the Senate. It is indisputable that the Republicans have settled on a tactic of obstruction, disinformation and fear-mongering, but it is equally indisputable that the Democrats have not countered it well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/opinion/21thur1....