Talk Elections

New Poll: Massachusetts Governor by Emerson College on 2014-10-29 (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/GOVERNOR/2014/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=2520141029223)

Summary: D: 42%, R: 48%, I: 6%, U: 5%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details (http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_e9bc55c69ddc4f55b743e3d8b1b6c5d7.pdf)

Coakley should never be allowed to run for Office again.

Maybe I'm imaging things, but it seems like more women get the whole perennial loser thing going on as of recent than men. Why is that? Martha Coakley, Alex Sink, Wendy Greuel?

What is she famous for losing?

Because when a man loses, it's "well, you win some you lose some, they did their best! The environment was just too much for them to overcome. Let's run them five more times like Manan Trivedi and Joe Garcia".

When a woman loses? "OMFG WORST CANDIDATE EVER NEVER RUN AGAIN YOU SUCK"

Spot on.

"Because Sexism and le Massachusetts Patriarchy" - Lief

Because Coakley didn't run an uninspiring campaign and lose Ted Kennedy's seat and end up with about zero endorsements and is losing this one...

And Elizabeth Warren wasn't elected to the Senate in Massachusetts.

Sexism.. Hardly... Bad candidate... Absolutely.

I think you completely missed the point of my post. The point is that female "perennial losers" are given hell whereas male ones are tolerated if not outright embraced.

As for sexism, the Boston boys club took forever to gave lukewarm support (at best) to Coakley in 2010 and 2014 and Warren in 2012. Of course, far be it from a bunch of young males on a forum to see whether or not sexism is present, but that seems like a rather obvious trend to me.

That didn't really explain anything. Typical IceSpear post.

It does though. There are plenty of men "perennial losers" (I named two right in that post). They just don't get focused on as much as the female ones so nobody cares/knows about them.

???

I mean they should. I have no clue why Democrats keep on running Manan Trivedi over and over again inspite of his consistent loser status (Garcia, on the other hand, actually won a seat in congress). You have a tendency to strawman everything, but I guess I see your point, though my question now is why that is.

I hope Democrats have the same hatred for Joe Baca (who is basically a sexist moron AND a loser). It seems to be an epidemic on the Democrat side of things too.

Dianne Feinstein crushed a incumbent senator a few years after losing the CA governor's race when it was a open seat. I guess that inherent disdain for women running as losers must have ruined her chances.

Hahahahahahahaha

Calling Coakley a horrible candidate for blowing near-slam-dunk campaigns is now sexist? Wow. Forum Demohacks jump the shark.

It's ALL Coakley's fault guys, really. If it wasn't for her, this seat would be a Dem lock!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/governor/ma/massachusetts_governor_baker_vs_berwick-3867.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/governor/ma/massachusetts_governor_baker_vs_grossman-3267.html

Coakley did not run a bad campaign this time. It wasn't great, but it wasn't the disaster it was in 2010. She's (probably) going to lose because MA loves electing moderate Republican governors and because the boys club in Boston has stabbed her in the back since day 1.

The Good Ole Boys' Club strikes again!

()

I don't think she'll win but I wouldn't count her out completely yet. This is Massachusetts...

Thanks for proving my point. Despite being a loser who got completely blown out of the water, he placed second in a national presidential primary.

Did you see the competition? Nobody and I mean nobody takes Santorum seriously, especially here. His name was made synonymous with...a frothy mixture of sorts. Politics is a dirty game all around. Your "life is just so darn hard for the womyn" narrative is just a load of hot air.

Doesn't matter what the competition was. A woman with Santorum's electoral record would've gotten absolutely nowhere.

So you deny sexism in politics exists? Not that I don't expect it from a forum full of young men, but maybe you should actually listen to female politicians discuss the issue before being so dismissive of it.

We don't actually know if Martha Coakley was the only one who could have blown this race. Based on head-to-head polling with other democrats, she's not at all the only one. I doubt people would be decrying Grossman the same way.

Yup. If Grossman lost, it would be "Well, Baker was just a good candidate in a decent Republican year, running in a state that doesn't mind electing Republican governors. I'm sure he'll have a bright political future."

(Which is the correct explanation for this probable loss, by the way.)

IceSpear is doing God's work in this thread.

ITT blaming Coakley for not winning a race any Democrat would be an underdog in

And your whole life, you must have thought to your sad self, "Santorum and I have absolutely nothing in common!" Go figure!

IceSpear is exactly right. Coakley has been running a good campaign this year. The fundamentals favor Baker because he's also running a good campaign. The only Dem to be elected governor since 1986 was able to succeed because he summoned into being a massive power base outside of the Dem hierarchy. You pretty much need to do that to succeed against a party all too happy to work with a reasonable Republican, especially against a woman.

I'd say Baker has run a much stronger campaign (which is why he's winning), particularly in comparison to his failed 2010 run.

I'm so disgusted with her.