So Mr. Brown won "Ted Kennedy's" Massachusetts Senate seat and the Republicans are crowing how much this means voters are tired of President Obama. I wonder, however, how much of this victory is people being pro-Republican and how much is it being anti-Coakley?
From what I read (and I didn't follow the campaign too closely), Ms. Coakley never really connected with the voters, taking victory for granted and mocking Mr. Brown for shaking voters' hands outside Fenway, much like Ted Kennedy, who never took winning for granted, would have done. She under-estimated the retail politicking Senator Kennedy succeeded at, appearing disengaged, and paid the price.
In my mind this is similar to what happened in NJ last fall. Governor Corzine wasn't voted out of office because the state suddenly turned conservative. He was voted out because the people didn't like him and wanted a change. Former Governor Corzine was not a good public speaker and never really connected with the voters. Mr. Corzine actually had smaller budgets the last year or two but nobody noticed. Instead of talking to the people, he talked to the union heads. If Governor Christie does what he did while he was federal prosecutor and weeds out corruption, he will be considered a success.
So before the Republicans make the same mistake and take voter anger at Democrats for granted, they really need to look at the individuals involved. All politics is local.
