1) I think that a large part of the Massachusetts electorate’s disgust with “business as usual” reflects Obama’s policy decisions. While they may be broadly sympathetic to his agenda and reluctant to abandon him politically, I don’t think that Brown would have had a chance if support for Obama was a deep as it is broad within the state.

2) I think that in practice, Brown is more likely to be a John McCain Republican than a Jim DeMint Republican. Expect conservative votes on health care, economic policy, and national security issues, but don’t be shocked if he crosses the aisle on judicial appointments, among other possible items.

And yes, I’ve already got my DVR set for Lost…

I strongly believe that Coakley’s loss was not a referendum on her policy beliefs, nor on Obama’s presidency – polls in MA show that both are still favored by majorities. One key factor was that she ran a horrible campaign, seeming out of touch with a core MA identity – messing up Red Sox issues is a third rail in Boston! In many instances, she was all-but-daring voters to like her. But the broader sentiment was a repudiation the way Washington has been operating, leveraging a widespread anger against how the recession recovery has helped bankers over workers, how health care has been compromised to cater to medical industries and specific Senatorial kickbacks over any clear principles, how calls of change and reform have seemed more incremental and measured than promised. Basically, many people who supported Obama are let down on how his first year has not delivered on the hopes that many of us felt his election represented. Remember – a good portion of those anti-HCR voters were objecting from the left, not the right.

In other words, the MA electorate is nowhere near as conservative as Brown, and clear majorities favor Coakley’s stance on issues over Brown’s. People voted against their policy beliefs to “send a message” to Dems that they feel overlooked – and Brown did a good job seeming like a populist despite a stance on issues that point the other way. And I respect the desire to avoid voting for a distasteful candidate just because they play for your nominal team.

So why is my faith lost? Two key reasons: first, the two-party system is so corrupt at the moment that voters rarely have options beyond voting for the lesser of two evils. While there are substantial differences between the parties, many MA voters had to either vote for someone they disliked but agreed with in broad principle, or someone they found more agreeable but was much further to the right of them on most issues – and knowing that once he’s in DC, Brown will line-up with the far right-wing Senators to block all Dem policy wins. So the choice is status quo ineptitude, or “change” in the form of obstructionism. (Or to not vote, which seemed to be the preference of most young voters…)

The second is that the election coverage furthered the politics-as-game frame that infuriates me. Now that the GOP can (and seems intent to) filibuster everything, the entire political coverage is about scoring points, racking up the additional vote, strategies to block the filibuster, etc. Any focus on actual issues of governance or policy becomes overwhelmed by the game – and that disgusts me. (This is why I could never live in DC…)

I won’t try to argue with you about policy or so-called “traditional American ideals” – but don’t assume that the disenchanted left is somehow sorer losers or refuse to accept electoral results based on a few isolated tweets. (And I’d heartily disagree that the right is somehow more gracious in losing, as evidenced by the birthers and others who believe that Obama’s win was stolen without any actual evidence or rationale!)

OK – back to agreeing about important things like television…