Political Theory and Reality TV

Politicians and News Op-ed people keep asking:
Why have decades of sensible voters from Massachusetts suddenly switched sides?

Despite having an immunity token, the Democrats were voted off the island on Tuesday. How could this happen? Were there countless families in Texas using cell phones to dial in votes a'la Fantasia of American Idol? Do we just not know about the Republican version of Acorn? What moved the voters to do this?

It couldn't be the issues like an out of control Congress, the deficit, the sausage that is health care, no, there has to be an angle. Obviously, the voters of Boston and Hyannisport and all points in between were Sarah Palin style fooled by his truck, and memorized by the 20 year old Cosmo spread.

Some speculated on more sinister motives. Those pesky threatened sexist Yankees....I mean Red Sox Chowderheads. There just had to be a bigger reason for Brown's election. Maybe the big Republican machine....except the Republicans are practically endangered species in MA and I might add, what big Republican machine? Republicans have been on the ropes and in shambles for the past four years. The GOP barely has token party offices in Boston.

Apparently, the victory of Scott Brown in the bluest of blue states isn't a referendum on the President. It isn't a commentary on the bad bill for health care. It may reveal anger, but it's anger at the Republicans AND Democrats if it's anger. It's just a local fluke, the outlier from the standard deviation bell curve of voting that one just throws out when considering data.

Still, when something this big happens, people search for meaning, for reason.

Theory One: Scott Brown ran a flawless campaign akin to the President's own historic bid for the office, and his grass roots are just like Barrack's. Coakley made a horrible run and didn't hire the right people. (They didn't wait until after the election to tell all about her gaffes behind the scenes). The Electorate fell for the slick campaign. Right. This is Massachusetts. They vote Democrat in their sleep, reflexively. Poorness of campaign did not stop them from voting for Dukakis in 1988.

This one should be considered a stone thrown by a glass house owner. I wouldn't throw to many of them. Believe it if you want, but I wouldn't.

Theory Two: Coakley lost because she's a woman and Scott won because he's a white man. That theory doesn't mesh with Massachussett's long standing liberal policies and Democrat tradition. How did the state that houses Harvard suddenly become the mental, social and emotional equivalent of the middle ages? Answer: the unbiased media likes a horse race and allowed it to happen by making things seem closer than they actually appeared. Got that? The News manufactured Brown's victory by giving such fair and balanced coverage. Yeah. That's it.

Theory Three: Maybe the voters were upset and wanted a more liberal version of the health care bill. So...so...soooooo...to send a message to Washington and the President not to be so conciliatory to the Republicans, the voters decided to elect the Republican candidate. Leaving aside the laughable idea that the Democrats in the House, Senate or Executive branch have been TOO accommodating to anyone with an "R" next to their name, I still don't see how a Democratic state would teach the administration not to play nice with the Republicans by electing one. I don't know how you even get to think this theory but it's being put forth as why.

Alternatively, maybe it was something petty and simple like all those people who voted in the election felt they got ripped when Brown's daughter got booted from American Idol and Taylor Swift made it big.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but look for Democrats to be signing up their kids for "So You Think You Can Dance" and "America's Got Talent" before 2012.