The Czar’s most inexplicable read, The New York Times, thinks it might have this Coakley loss figured out. See, Coakley did not campaign enough. And some of her public comments did not look smart. Things, you see, were “not right” in Massachusetts.
Look, the upshot to the article is this: it attempt to analyze to the death why Coakley lost and how Brown possibly could have won. Here it is all over again: the liberals’ stunned disbelief that people actually reject their actions and conclusions.
We saw this with Bush v Gore in 2000—and a crapload of liberals still argue red-faced that Gore won, and should retroactively be made president, and that Bush must have done something illegal to have been elected on such a landslide minority vote. Bush v Kerry? More of the same, only instead of Florida, we have Ohio to blame.
Here is the difference. When McCain/Palin lost in 2008, Republican and conservative pundits already knew what the loss-causing elements were, and ran a cursory review to figure out what they could do in 2010 and 2012 to prevent a similar loss.
Liberals will continue to review the last election—not to plan for the next one—but to figure out what bizarre injustice was done to see if things can be reversed. The Times plays into this hand-wringing OCD by agonizing every detail of the Coakley campaign and every aspect the Brown campaign not to figure out why Massachusetts elected Brown, but how on earth Coakley could have lost.
If Brown had lost, we would have sniffed the carcass and moved on to the next hunt. Coakley fans will sit by the corpse and howl at the moon until their master returns to feed them.
Prediction: in August, the GOP will be leveraging Brown’s experience to launch campaigns against Boxer, Reid, Burris, and more. The Democrats will still be howling about Coakley.