Significant elections for meaningful positions are won by the candidate who runs a better campaign and who is a better candidate that the opponent. Sounds rhetorical doesn't it.
Today's Senate race for the late Ted Kennedy's US Senate seat from Massachusetts was won by Republican Scott Brown. Stated another way, it was lost by the once-favored Democrat Martha Coakley.
Obama was a more appealing candidate than McCain. Brown was more appealing that Coakley. She, quite frankly might be an okay lawyer but she's poorly informed on national and international issues.
In the Brown-Coakley race, here being an idiot was only one factor. It was a clear vote against Obamism, namely socialized medicine. Heck, the people from MA already have a state-sponsored health plan, thanks in part to ex-Governor, Republican Mitt Romney. They don't need no stinking federal program.
Elections, at the state level for federal positions, can only be won by winning the vote of the moderates. Moderates are not well informed; they are not ignorant, rather fence-sitters. They are not liberals, nor are they conservatives.
A candidate needs to be professional, intelligent, well-spoken but not too much of a good thing. They need to be someone who people can relate to.
Obama was a breath of fresh air for many -- new and different (so he appeared). McCain was old and stale. Brown brings reasonableness. He ran an honest campaign that was appealing enough for most -- not the die-hard liberals just the independents and moderates.
The biggest problem we have with elections is that the pool of candidates is so poor. What sane person would want the scrutiny and to be constantly begging for money in exchange for their soul?
I am glad Brown won. I hope we can all learn a lesson on how to win elections with good candidates and reasonable platforms.
Review: Wolfen (1981)
9 minutes ago