Martha Coakley lost the Senate election in Massachusetts last week, but according to liberals it wasn’t her positions that were responsible. After all, she’s a liberal, so her positions are automatically correct, right? Therefore, the problem has to be…
So, essentially, we have a lot of voters who are dumber than rocks. That is the problem with democracies I guess. Lots of poorly informed, ignorant and, in some cases, downright stupid, people marching off to the polls and voting contrary to their interests.
Of course! Those stupid, stupid voters. You know, the people who magically become educated and well-informed when they vote for liberal policies, but suddenly become brain-dead when they vote against them. After all, liberals are so much more enlightened and intelligent than everyone else. If only the American public would allow them to make all of the decisions for them. Then, they would be much better off!
The arrogance of the liberal mind never fails to astound me. It is the one weakness they have which practically guarantees eventual failure at the ballot box.
January 30th, 2010 at 1:34 am
You didn’t read my post very well. If you look at it in context you will see that the people I was referring to as “dumb” were the ones who essentially agreed with Coakley, but voted against her because, according to the poll, were upset because they didn’t think Democrats had gone far enough pushing health reform.
The voters who voted against Coakley because they disagree with her may be misinformed in my opinion, but they are not acting dumb. Their vote at least makes sense. It is the other people in the poll who were clearly voting contrary to their interests and thus earned the moniker “dumber than rocks.”
January 31st, 2010 at 5:35 pm
First off, the poll was conducted for three uber-liberal organizations by a left-leaning polling outfit called Research 2000. I wouldn’t put too much stock into the results unless they mirrored other, more accurate polls.
As for why people who agree with the liberal agenda voted against Coakley, maybe they thought that voting for her was against their interests. After all, even I know that Curt Schilling plays for the Red Sox, and I don’t follow baseball.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:57 am
Nick, this is the point at which it is appropriate for you to admit that you mischaracterized the point of Mike’s post. Or, maybe you could just add a title to your comment: “When polls don’t say what you think they should, blame the pollster!”
By the way, have you come across any polls that support your theory about what the voters of Massachussetts were saying?