Twist of events: Martha Coakley wins the Democratic nomination

[emcee0]

How does she do against the following candidates?
Ted Cruz
Mike Pence
Louie Gohmert
Michelle Bachmann
Rick Perry
Todd Akin
Empty Chair
Can Martha beat anyone??

[Panda Express]

she loses

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Today at 10:11:27 pm
in Re: Twist of events: Mar...
by Vox Populi

goddamn you

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

she loses

She narrowly beats Empty Chair.

[stegosaurus]

I know she loses Massachusetts...

[emcee0]

Discuss with maps!

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Generic R - 406
Coakley - 132

[emcee0]

I know she loses Massachusetts...

that's been determined

[IceSpear]

In all seriousness Coakley likely wins MA. There's quite a big difference between losing to Charlie Baker and losing to Scott Walker or Jeb Bush.

[Pyro]

Wulfirc's map seems about right, except for perhaps WA and MA if the economy is good.
She'd lose disastrously and she'd deserve it.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

In all seriousness Coakley likely wins MA. There's quite a big difference between losing to Charlie Baker and losing to Scott Walker or Jeb Bush.

Coakley lost a SENATE race. Massachusetts has been a purple-blue state in terms of governors for DECADES, that's not a new thing. Yes, Patrick was a democrat, but before him, you had Romney, then Jane Swift, then William Weld, all (moderate at the time) republicans. But in the Senate races, Coakley is the SOLE exception to a deep-blue trend that began in 1976. Even if she somehow won MA presidentially, it would be a narrow 1-3% victory.

[Beet]

I used to defend Coakley because her 2010 loss was at the height of Tea Party-style dissatisfaction, but her 2014 loss proved she's just as bad as everyone said. Besides, the whole Fells Acres incident was pretty disgusting.

[Türkisblau]

Further, her ridiculously unconstitutional anti-protester abortion bill reveals her to be a huge HP as well as an electoral failure.

[IceSpear]

In all seriousness Coakley likely wins MA. There's quite a big difference between losing to Charlie Baker and losing to Scott Walker or Jeb Bush.

Coakley lost a SENATE race. Massachusetts has been a purple-blue state in terms of governors for DECADES, that's not a new thing. Yes, Patrick was a democrat, but before him, you had Romney, then Jane Swift, then William Weld, all (moderate at the time) republicans. But in the Senate races, Coakley is the SOLE exception to a deep-blue trend that began in 1976. Even if she somehow won MA presidentially, it would be a narrow 1-3% victory.

Would Rick Berg lose North Dakota against Hillary Clinton? Would Alexi Giannoulias lose Illinois to Ted Cruz? Similarly, it will be a cold day in hell before MA would vote for Scott Walker over a piece of dog crap (D).

[Liberalrocks]

Empty Chair 408 Electoral Votes at least 55% of popular vote
Coakley       130 Electoral Votes around 45% of popular vote.

This is Coakley's ceiling.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

In all seriousness Coakley likely wins MA. There's quite a big difference between losing to Charlie Baker and losing to Scott Walker or Jeb Bush.

Coakley lost a SENATE race. Massachusetts has been a purple-blue state in terms of governors for DECADES, that's not a new thing. Yes, Patrick was a democrat, but before him, you had Romney, then Jane Swift, then William Weld, all (moderate at the time) republicans. But in the Senate races, Coakley is the SOLE exception to a deep-blue trend that began in 1976. Even if she somehow won MA presidentially, it would be a narrow 1-3% victory.

Would Rick Berg lose North Dakota against Hillary Clinton? Would Alexi Giannoulias lose Illinois to Ted Cruz? Similarly, it will be a cold day in hell before MA would vote for Scott Walker over a piece of dog crap (D).

Losing in a ND senate race is not unusual for republicans, you only have to go back to 2006 to find a win before the one that Heitkamp got in 2012. Illinois did not have a since-1976 deep blue senate trend before Kirk - Sen. Fitzgerald (R) was elected in 1998. Massachusetts is objectively the most partisan of those three states on the senate level, and Coakley still lost.

A piece of dog crap might win simply because it has no record to be attacked. But Coakley - she's worse than a deadly virus.

[Ebsy]

I mean, I like to bash Martha Chokely as much as the next guy, but is it really worth getting this vitriolic over someone who is never going to seek the nomination? I'm sure she feels bad enough.

[Bojack Horseman]

In all seriousness Coakley likely wins MA. There's quite a big difference between losing to Charlie Baker and losing to Scott Walker or Jeb Bush.

There's no difference between losing to Scott Walker and Scott Brown.

[Vosem]

[IceSpear]

Does Coakley crack 90% in Colorado by virtue of not being Hillary Clinton?

[WalterMitty]

would alex sink be her running mate?

i actually like alex sink, though.

[WalterMitty]

in all seriousness she could do no worse than this:

[NerdyBohemian]

Beat me to it!

[NewYorkExpress]

I'd be wondering how many New Hampshire voters (New Hampshire is presumably the only state she could be competitive in during the primaries) were drunk when they were voting.

[MATTROSE94]

This would be Martha Coakley's ceiling IMO:

On a more serious note, Massachussetts, Rhode Island, New York, Maryland, DC, Illinois, California and Washington will probably go Democratic regardless of how weak the Democratic nominee is. The same can be said about Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Alabama and possibly West Virginia on the Republican side.