If I have heard it once, I have heard it a thousand times: These special-elections are bell-weathers of what's to come later. Bull. The NY-23rd is an obvious GOP seat and the Dems took advantage of the GOP shooting themselves in the foot. New Jersey's Gub. election was a referendum on Corzine and his response to serious problems in New Jersey. The Va. Governor's race is the closest thing to it, but I just don't think the Democratic brand caused a GOP victory. And now, here's Mass. This idiocy requires a new paragraph...
There is absolutely no excuse for the Democrats to lose a special election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts. But isn't that the reason this election is a tell-tale sign of things to come. NO! NO! NO! President Obama has a 60% approval rating in the state and the Democrats nominated an incompetent candidate that doesn't even know Curt Shilling pitched for the Red Sox and the Democrats ran a campaign that assumed they were going to win by that initial 30 points they were up and never looked back. There are sometimes special elections that do offer signs of things to come. Sorry folks, this ain't one of them and anyone who says it is lives in a bubble called D.C., is a complete imbecile, or both. Yes, Brown wins and yes, Coakley loses. You k now what that means? Brown wins and Coakley loses. That's it.
***Footnote*** The Dems will lose 20-30 seats in the House and a handful of Senate seats in the midterms. This contradicts most of this past century, how? Wait, Wait..."The American people have spoken and have rejected the policies of tax and spend and government takeover, etc, etc..." Just know that (or something like it) is a load when you hear it in November.
