Political Analysis

A comment from Jonah Goldberg, with whom I often agree:
It looks better and better for Brown, but it's worth repeating that even if he loses, the mere fact that it was close is a massive repudiation of the White House and the Democrats. Everyone's trying to come up with historical analogies.
Even if Brown loses, the message to the Democrats should be deafening.

I have to disagree here somewhat. I think that personality and charisma are often more important than pundits admit. Let's not pretend that both candidates in this election have similar personal appeal. Coakley is prickly, and has a reputation for being ruthless and nasty. It shows in her campaign. Scott Brown seems like a decent guy you'd like to have as a neighbor, coworker of friend. That will translate into many votes for Brown. Most people simply want a moderate candidate who seems to have a head on his shoulders, who has experience with which they can relate, and who is trustworthy and likeable. That's Scott Brown in a nutshell.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with that sort of voting. Critics may think it naive, and say we should all vote on the issues. I say voting on issues are fine, if you believe what the candidate is saying. Naive are those who thought that the b.s. President Obama was shoveling on many issues during the campaign was how he felt on those issues, or how he would act on them. If you think the candidate can't be trusted to act the way he says he will, how does it make sense to vote according to his statements on the issues?