Brown Victory: “The Most Significant Non-Presidential Election”?
So sayeth Hugh Hewitt: The Most Significant Non-Presidential Election of my Lifetime, and the Most Surprising Result Period.
Is he right?
Despite its reputation, Massachusetts did not deliver the highest percentage of its votes to the Democratic nominee in the most recent presidential election. Obama did better in his native Hawai’i and Illinois and also in New York, Vermont and Joe Biden’s Delaware. But, only once since 1956 has a Republican won a majority of votes in the Bay State in a presidential election. The Gipper won with a plurality in 1980, winning a smaller percentage of the vote there than in did in Minnesota which he lost. (John Anderson drew 15% of the vote in Massachusetts, but only 8% in the Gopher State.)
24 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hugh Hewitt is Mr. Republican Hyperbole man. You can’t look to him for anything like an objective analysis.
Mass has a long history of electing liberal Republicans to the state house. I remember Ed Brooke – the liberal Republican Senator elected twice, serving till ’78. There hasn’t been any senators elected from the GOP since then, but then again, there haven’t been any open Senate seats since 1984.
Electing a pro-choice, socially liberal, pro-universal health care (at least RomneyCare – altough I dont know what he sees as different in ObamaCare) Republican is hardly a surprise – except for the “Teddy’s seat” dramatics of it all.
Comment by Tano — January 21, 2010 @ 8:58 am - January 21, 2010
Tano, wrongo ….. as usual.
1.) Pro choice is not socially liberal. Pro abortion with government funding and easy access to abortion at the mall is socially liberal.
2) Health care reform is not socially liberal. John Edwards is a sterling example of government failure to protect the health care system from predatory opportunists. Underfunding socialized medical programs and loading them up with mission creep is another sterling example of socially liberal malfeasance.
3) Take away Edward Brook’s race and then remind me again why he should be remembered? What was his great piece of social liberal legislation that changed the way the rules are written and how the game is played?
Anyone who is not arm in arm with James Dobson or more conservative is a social liberal in your fantasy world.
We will all watch together see how Scott Brown takes on his role. You will be wetting yourself every time he pushes your social liberal button. I will be curious to see if he can remain the senator who is independent of the powerful forces he claims to be.
One final note. I suspect that when you ask Scott Brown what happens when an abortion is performed, he will tell you that a human life is killed.
Comment by heliotrope — January 21, 2010 @ 9:32 am - January 21, 2010
I don’t think it is as significant as the 94 midterm or the 06 midterm, which caused major power shifts and changed the political environment. Yes, Brown’s win does end the 60 vote super majority, but they still have 18 more voters than the Republicans. Democrats still control the levers of power and Obama can still get most of his agenda put through. If 2010 turns out to be a Republican Wave, then maybe…but for right now, no I think thats going over board.
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — January 21, 2010 @ 10:29 am - January 21, 2010
#1: “Electing a pro-choice, socially liberal, pro-universal health care (at least RomneyCare – altough I dont know what he sees as different in ObamaCare) Republican is hardly a surprise – except for the “Teddy’s seat” dramatics of it all.”
Of course you don’t know what Brown sees in RomneyCare as different from ObamaCare, Talking Points Tano. That’s because you’re a liberal and liberals cannot see past intentions, and with both programs the intentions were to provide superior healthcare for free to all comers and the primary feature of both plans is that the laws of arithmetic would magically not apply. That’s good enough for liberals. But the REAL difference between the programs is that one of them (RomneyCare) has been in operation for a couple of years and IT’S A TOTAL FU*KING DISASTER. We can also look to the example of Hawaii’s universal healthcare program for children which was shut down after seven months because it was also A TOTAL FU*KING DISASTER. Naturally, none of this matters to you because intentions always trump results. So, as long as the intentions behind universal healthcare are good, the program is a success. In light of the performance of RomneyCare, only a delusional, liberal fool (you) would look at the program and exclaim, “Let’s take it national!” That’s why liberals should not be permitted to govern in any capacity–they are incapable of acknowledging catastrophic failure (perhaps it is because their failures are always financed with other people’s money).
Comment by Sean A — January 21, 2010 @ 11:17 am - January 21, 2010
And Tano has given a long-winded version of the left’s response “It don’t mean nothing, it don’t mean nothing, nothing, nothing nothing!!!!“
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 21, 2010 @ 11:18 am - January 21, 2010
Darkeyedresolve:
You can not compare 1994 and 2010 because the Senate open seats are different and the Presidents are totally different.
2010 will very likely oust some big name Democrat senators. But Obama will NOT shift as Clinton did and become more moderate.
Therefore, 2010 is a bellwether for tea-party style change. It is not the winning battle, it is the invasion. As a life-long Republican, I am hoping that my own party is reformed by the realization that business as usual is no longer going to fly.
Comment by heliotrope — January 21, 2010 @ 11:24 am - January 21, 2010
Sean A,
I have truncated this to fit my context:
I think liberals are extraordinary at running the Bureau of Double Standards. (However, if the Bureau of Double Standards were to be shut down, then I agree, there is no use for liberals in governing.)
Comment by heliotrope — January 21, 2010 @ 11:43 am - January 21, 2010
#5: TGC, before the election, Brown was “an irresponsible homophobic racist reactionary ex-nude-model tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.” Post-victory, according to Talking Points Tano, Brown is now “a pro-choice, socially liberal, pro-universal health care Republican” and his win “is hardly a surprise.”
Comment by Sean A — January 21, 2010 @ 11:49 am - January 21, 2010
#7: Agreed heliotrope. Liberals have been running that bureau like a well-oiled machine for decades. Of course, they just call it the “Bureau of Standards.” The “Double” is silent.
Comment by Sean A — January 21, 2010 @ 11:53 am - January 21, 2010
And then Der Spiegel says that it is a big deal:
OUCH!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 21, 2010 @ 12:18 pm - January 21, 2010
Heliotrope
I think it compares in the sense it would be a tide change in terms of what was projected after 2008. We were suppose to be a Democratically Re-Aligned Country and the Democrats would basically have a lock on the Congress from now on. 94 was huge for the fact that Democrats lost control of the House for the first time ever. 2010 could see a them going from having their biggest majorities in decades to either losing control or holding on to a slim majority. I mean its till too soon to say whats going to happen but things seem to shaping up that way so far. It will only have taken 4 years for Democrats to go from ascending to bottoming out.
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — January 21, 2010 @ 12:24 pm - January 21, 2010
“Pro choice is not socially liberal”
Oh really? Have we already made such progress that being prochoice is now an acceptable position on the right? Thats news to me….
“Health care reform is not socially liberal. ”
??????
I have no idea what your ranting about John Edwards is supposed to mean here…
“Take away Edward Brook’s race and then remind me again why he should be remembered?”
??????
I am at a loss to figure out where you are going with any of this Helio. I mentioned Brooke simply to make the case that electing Republicans, even to the Senate, is not so unusual in MA – contra all the buzz we are hearing from the right.
Comment by Tano — January 21, 2010 @ 1:13 pm - January 21, 2010
As to the question of RomneyCare and how it has fared, lets ask the people of MA – LINK
Comment by Tano — January 21, 2010 @ 1:18 pm - January 21, 2010
LOL
Good catch.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 21, 2010 @ 2:16 pm - January 21, 2010
#13: Talking Points Tano, I must confess that I am speechless. You mean to tell me that the people of Massachusetts–who are saddled with one of the highest state tax burdens in the nation–are HAPPY with a program that encourages them to drop their current health insurance that they can easily afford in favor of government subsidized health care insurance for free? I’m shocked! Tano, I stand corrected. Clearly, I completely overlooked a crucial factor–that people who pay high taxes LIKE getting free stuff from the government. That never even occurred to me. That changes everything!
So, you win, Tano. If the people are happy getting free stuff from the government and want to continue doing so, the program is a resounding and undisputed success. Bankruptcy, schmankruptcy.
Comment by Sean A — January 21, 2010 @ 2:19 pm - January 21, 2010
Can Tano address some of our questions and concerns from the past few weeks when he left us?
Is Reid a racist or does he call everyone negros.
Why didn’t Obama save more lives in Haiti.
Does he agree with B Clinton that Obama should be getting Bill and Teddy coffee?
things like that…….tic tock….
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 21, 2010 @ 4:32 pm - January 21, 2010
[...] Good Morning, DNC! Riehl World View: Democrats Underestimated America’s Anger GayPatriot: Brown Victory: “The Most Significant Non-Presidential Election”? Greg Gutfeld, Big Hollywood: Daily Gut: ‘Teabaggers’ Tuesday Triumph Patterico’s [...]
Pingback by Mort Zuckerman: I’m Disgusted… Obama’s “Done Everything Wrong” (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone — January 21, 2010 @ 5:21 pm - January 21, 2010
Hi Gene,
So sorry to have left you high and dry for a while. Maybe we can work out some subscription to my thoughts or something.
No, Reid is not a racist. I am at a total loss for how you guys could sustain the buzz over that non-story for as many days as you did. What Reid said is totally true – what was the controversy?
Why didnt Obama save more lives in Haiti? What is the issue here? Because he is not Jesus or something? He couldn’t lift up the buildings from a few thousand miles away?
And I have no idea what to make of the statement attributed to Clinton. I admit that, if he said it like that, and if the context was what it seems it might have been, then it was a pretty offensive comment. But who knows – I havent heard the other side of the story.
Comment by Tano — January 21, 2010 @ 5:40 pm - January 21, 2010
Ok Tano, liberal Democrat Senator and leader H Reid said
Obama was a guy who came across as white and could hide his negro dialect when he wanted to. So he would be a good candidate for President. If you dont’ see a problem with that, God love ya.
second, when Hillary was running against Obama in the Dem primaries, Bill goes up to Teddy Kennedy and says….”look Teddy, you know as well as I do a couple years ago, this guy Obama would have been fetching us coffee.” To his credit Teddy was appalled and as you know, well maybe you don’t know, back then the liberal wing of the party started to get highly upset with the Clintons.
Now to my mind these people are racists or at least say racist things. They should not be excused just because they are Democrats.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 21, 2010 @ 6:43 pm - January 21, 2010
Oh Haiti….and blaming Obama. I caught two diff reports one on MSDNC, the other on independent Fox News. The first was a panel of about 8 parents begging to have their kids saved from Haiti. They were on a school trip to mission in Haiti and were in a collapsed hotel. They were begging Obama to get more involved and rush in heavy equipment to help save their buried kids. The other report on fox was another American group with buried students who couldn’t find anyone in charge to help dig out their relatives. Both sessions broke down into crying and shouting for Obama to show more leadership and involvement.
I think after the first few days Obama has become detached from the reality in Haiti.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 21, 2010 @ 6:55 pm - January 21, 2010
Tano,
Many of my ultra-conservative friends understand that it is not possible to eliminate abortion through criminalization. They have made a pact with the liberal devil of necessity and have decided to make abortion rare and the last option of a woman.
The libs coined the “pro-choice” tag and the conservatives have been shoved into the “pro-life” stance by the MSM. I am always in favor of life and I snort at the constant push by the libs to try to make me think that “it” is a clump of cells and abortion is like popping a zit.
So, when I say “pro-choice” is not necessarily a social liberal view, I admit I am using the stupid terminology of the left. In all cases, abortion is a baby killing. I would be much more comfortable to discuss it in those terms.
Many conservatives are reluctant to send a doctor who intentionally kills a fetus to jail and are also reluctant to send a mother to prison when she has her fetus killed.
Comment by heliotrope — January 21, 2010 @ 7:33 pm - January 21, 2010
Gene,
There are thousands of US troops in Haiti, doing their best to find and dig out people, feed the hungry and help to maintain order. Its a city of 3 million – I am sure that some are not being helped as quickly as would be ideal. I sense you are dying to find some way to expliot this tragedy for political gain, but I dont think it will work.
Comment by Tano — January 21, 2010 @ 9:38 pm - January 21, 2010
‘Many conservatives are reluctant to send a doctor who intentionally kills a fetus to jail and are also reluctant to send a mother to prison when she has her fetus killed.’
I realize that this is not the time or place to start an abortion discussion, since those tend to be long. But this fact that you point out has never made any sense to me.
I don’t consider abortion to be murder. But if I did, I don’t quite see how I could then fail to apply the sanctions that we place on murderers onto the mother and the doctor. If it is murder, then it is murder. If it is murder, then the doctor and the mother are murderers. If anything, the very worst kind of murderers, since their victim is the most helpless of any.
So this position you outline seems to make no sense whatsoever. And, as a result, since I have never heard a good explanation for it, I (and most prochoice people) seem compelled to conclude that y’all are really just totally hypocritical on this issue. You do not support criminal sanctions (the death penalty!!) for mothers who have abortions because of political concerns, pure and simple. You know that taking such a position would doom the pro-life movement in an absolute sense. So you totally mangle your principles for political positioning.
Is there something I am missing here?
Comment by Tano — January 21, 2010 @ 9:47 pm - January 21, 2010
I thought I saw a Tano comment, but I’m sure that can’t be true, since he’s all for banning liars, so he banned himself, since he can’t stand hypocrits.
Comment by The_Livewire — January 22, 2010 @ 9:15 am - January 22, 2010