electing local representation to the state legislature that is one-sided Democratic Party. Then seeks to absolve itself with a Republican Governor, unless there is a clear and objective Democrat star power candidate in the race, who is all for fairness, justice, and has a great personality, (Deval Patrick, Dukakis, etc.).
After 40+ years of Kennedy in the Senate, Massachusetts sought to absolve herself of a one party U.S. Senate incumbancy, by NOT voting for a distinguished but slightly politically flawed first woman ever as Senator, Democratic Attorney General woman to represent them in the U.S. Senate.
They chose playgirl boy Brown, who was just an ordinary guy, no record of distinction for his 10 plus years in the state house legislature from a conservative area. Brown tailored himself as "just one of the guys". Elizabeth Warren, by contrast, as we see now, is a very distinguished Harvard college professor, former teacher, a woman who rose from the ranks by ability alone.
The people of Massachusetts get locked into all sorts of "it's just the way it is" thinking, not "innovation and reform" thinking. The Kennedy's would never have been successful in politics for all those years had it not been for Jack Kennedy becoming a saint in Massachusetts in 1963 when he was killed. Massachusetts remembers her past, and sticks with it, the past of 3 years ago, or the past of 49 years ago. Unless a Kennedy runs against Brown, Massachusetts leaves things as they are in politics, doesn't like women to defeat a man, and has a real problem with Harvard folks telling what is best for them, prefers the common ordinary guy in a pick-up truck to the Harvard professor as a Senator.
That's how the election is close.
= new reply since forum marked as read
