Who was the worst candidate: Sharron Angle or Martha Coakley?

[The Arizonan]

I'd say Sharron Angle.

[Asian Nazi]

Coakley was a meh candidate who ran a meh campaign and a bad one.

Angle was batsh**t insane.

[Zioneer]

Angle was basically Carl Paladino's level of crazy translated to a friendlier state. Coakley was merely bad at campaigning at a very critical time.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Angel, Dems had 60 votes in the Senate, and they had passed a partisan ACA bill. Angel should have won race, but her neglect towards media lost her votes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Coakley is better at losing.

[smoltchanov]

Angle. By far.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Angle.  She took a seat that was almost a certain GOP gain and resurrected Harry Reid's career.  Say what you will about Coakley, but at least she put up a fight in her two campaigns.

[Vosem]

Angle was the worse candidate, though I have to note that she still performed much less embarrassingly than Coakley (losing as a Republican by single-digits in Nevada once is far less damning than losing as a Democrat by single-digits in Massachusetts...twice). Of course, in addition to the atmosphere, Angle had the advantage of facing a very low-energy opponent in Harry Reid, while Coakley went up against two heavyweights in Scott Brown and Charlie Baker.

[ag]

Angle was the worse candidate, though I have to note that she still performed much less embarrassingly than Coakley (losing as a Republican by single-digits in Nevada once is far less damning than losing as a Democrat by single-digits in Massachusetts...twice). Of course, in addition to the atmosphere, Angle had the advantage of facing a very low-energy opponent in Harry Reid, while Coakley went up against two heavyweights in Scott Brown and Charlie Baker.

Brown and Baker are only "heavyweights" ex post: and, at least in case of Brown, his only claim to be a majorl politician is defeating Coakley: he had no chance against even a moderately competent Democratic politician (as should be the case in MA, of course: this is not reflection on Brown, but of reality). Reid, on the other hand, might be "low energy", but he did reach the top heights of American politics: the definition of the heavyweight. He has forgotten more about winning elections than Brown and Baker ever knew together.

Coakley has had the most disastrous political career of any notable politician in recent history: clearly, she has no place in elected politics.

[JMT]

Sharron Angle by far. She is nuts, and said some really whacky things. Coakley was sane and competent, she just didn't campaign hard enough and she assumed she would win.

[Skye]

Coakley. Nevada isn't as Republican as Massachusetts is Democratic.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Coakley. Nevada isn't as Republican as Massachusetts is Democratic.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Actually, Nevada isnt GOP at all, it is a populist, middle of the road Dem state and VA is trending that way. It votes Dem in presidential years.

Angel ignored the media, and wasnt a good candidate.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Coakley. Few other people have lost not only one but two sure-thing statewide elections in such a friendly state.

[Brittain33]

Brown and Baker are only "heavyweights" ex post: and, at least in case of Brown, his only claim to be a majorl politician is defeating Coakley: he had no chance against even a moderately competent Democratic politician (as should be the case in MA, of course: this is not reflection on Brown, but of reality).

Oh, I think Capuano or any other Democrat would have lost to Brown as well in 2010. He wasn't accomplished nor did he prove to be very smart, but he was charismatic and had the right message at a really bad time for Democrats.

[Maxwell]

The difference is Angle actually led opinion polls and still managed to lose by 6 points to Harry Reid. It's gotta be Angle.

[The Arizonan]

It should also be noted that Sharron Angle never got elected to statewide office like Martha Coakley did.

is there a source other than politics1.com that confirms that Angle is running for Harry Reid's Senate seat?

[Ebsy]

Angle, clearly.

[Free Bird]

Coakley had no right to lose either time

[Figueira]

Coakley had no right to lose either time

Republicans usually win open MA gubernatorial elections in Republican years.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Angle at least had the fallback excuse of only losing by 5% in a usually very competitive Nevada.

[Del Tachi]

Coakley lost a much more winnable election in a much more winnable state.

Angle's performance is unsurprising considering her crazy views and the fact that she was going against the incumbent Senate majority leader. 

[tallguy23]

Coakley was boring and dull. Angle was the train conductor on the Crazy Town Express.

[pho]

Angle is clearly the worst on an intellectual level, but the question was worse candidate.

Sharon Angle lost in a swing state to the the Senate Majority Leader by 6 pts because she said moronic things.

Martha Coakley lost to a somewhat dim Republican...in a federal special election...in Massachusetts...in an election dominated by health care, the hall mark issue of the legendary Democrat who previously held the seat in question. That fails so much harder than Sharon Angle.

[hopper]

Angle lost the latino vote 90-8% in 2010 according to "Latino Decisions" Polling. That's was basically the election right there.

I do think Angle was a worse candidate than Coakley.