There's going to be a lot of bloviating around the country about the Massachusetts election.

There will be people claiming that this shows that nobody wants health care. That Obama is finished. That the Democrats are in disarray.

There's some truth to that last one.

But let's set the record straight before talking heads get locked into their story which will push whatever agenda they have.

The Democrats lost the Senate seat because they ran a lousy candidate with a lousy campaign. Against a good candidate with a good campaign.

That's all. You'll have noticed that even the folks on my friends list who are hugely politically active mostly didn't lift very many fingers to help Coakley.

Because she just wasn't worth it. I mean, we didn't like Brown's positions very much, and, at the end, we voted for her by default. But the moderates on my friends list -- and a few of the progressives -- just couldn't get themselves to go to the polls. Or, if they did, submitted blank ballots. Or wrote in "NONE OF THE ABOVE." Which doesn't count for anything, of course, but it's definitely how a lot of progressives felt.

Coakley didn't give anyone any reason to vote for her other than, "Not Scott Brown." And, for a lot of Massachusetts, "Not Scott Brown" wasn't much of a selling point. And for another lot of Massachusetts, it WAS a selling point -- but not enough of one.

Massachusetts isn't as much of a "machine" state as it used to be. At this point, in order to win, you actually have to inspire your base to go out and, y'know, DO things. Like, for instance, talk to their friends.

I got robocalls from Democratic machers, which didn't even give any real reason to vote for her -- just "I'm Bill Clinton. So, um, vote for the Democrat, wouldja? Because Kennedy was a Democrat, and you liked him, didn't you?"

The premises are true. "Kennedy was a Democrat. Coakley is a Democrat. You liked Kennedy. QED, you like Coakley." All those premises are true. However, the syllogism is faulty, and the conclusion invalid.

I got ONE call from a real person, the kind of "ground troops" that got Obama elected. And his argument was, "I'm making phone calls for Coakley, because I think Brown is marginally worse." And he sounded embarrassed about it. And thanked me for not being nasty to him.

It's hard to win an election when you don't have any supporters.

A question for Brits

Okay. So, I understand that in Great Britain, there is prejudice against redheads. "Ginger" is something of an insult.

Out of curiosity, what are the prejudices that go along with it? What are the prejudicial attitudes that people have of redheads? What personality traits are assumed of redheads that create the prejudice?

In the United States, I would say that there is a mild positive prejudice toward redheads, with redheads seen as passionate, enthusiastic, energetic, and generally dynamic. The potentially negative aspects of this prejudice include an assumed short temper and an assumed sexual adventuresome-ness, and perhaps a little bit of Crazy, but those aren't seen as SERIOUS negative effects, and, in fact, can be seen, by some people, as somewhat positive.

What are the characteristics that are prejudicially associated with redheads in Britain?

I'm good with flavors. It's textures I've got difficulty with

So.

Frozen boneless chicken breasts.

How does one cook them so they are NOT rubbery? I've never really managed it. I can make them TASTE good. But they always end up such that one could play jacks with them.