(Thumbnail image: The Boston Globe)

BROWN: “I thank the people of Massachusetts for electing me as your next United States senator.” (CBS News)

For the first time in almost forty years, Massachusetts elected a Republican to the Senate, giving Scott Brown the seat vacated by the late liberal icon Ted Kennedy.

But Democrat Martha Coakley’s loss in one of the nation’s bluest states has politicos on all ends of the spectrum scrambling for an explanation.

We’re looking at perspectives from MSNBC, Politico, CNN, FOX News, ABC News and others.

One of the more widely reported reasons for the Democrats’ loss in Massachusetts is voter frustration with the Democratic Party and the Obama agenda.

On FOX News, contributor and former adviser to President George W. Bush Karl Rove says Coakley was a worthy candidate, but her party is to blame.

“Look, she was the attorney general in the state. She beat her competition in the primary by over 100-thousand votes. She’s won statewide; she’s been a political fixture in Massachusetts. She knows how to win there... Scott Brown won in a deep blue state because he talked about the Obama administration and Democratic initiatives the last year put himself on the opposite side of it.”

MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell suggests Brown out-campaigned Coakley by riding the Independent wave.

“This is also about an Independent streak that is raging through this country. You saw it of course in Virginia and in New Jersey, and now in Massachusetts. That’s exactly what Scott Brown tapped into in this campaign... And he said this is the people’s seat, and that caused this crowd to erupt. The idea that it’s not Ted Kennedy’s seat, but it is the people’s seat.”

But The New York Times suggests the voter revolt is broader.

“There is a good argument that the outcome was as much an anti-incumbent wave during tough economic times as it was an anti-Democratic wave.”

Other reports are focusing the blame on Coakley’s candidacy itself.

CNN’s Jim Acosta points out that early on in the race, Coakley was up in the polls by almost 30 points. He suggests her 5 percent loss is the result of a series of her own missteps.

“But we heard two big things from voters about Martha Coakley in this race. One is that she ran a lazy campaign, and the other is that she ran a nasty campaign. Both of those qualities did not go over well with these angry, independent-minded voters up here in Massachusetts who are very upset about the was the economy is going right now.”

In her concession speech, Coakley predicted Wednesday would be full of “quarterbacking” about what went right and wrong in her campaign.

ABC’s Jake Tapper reports the spin machine is at work on both sides, but one excuse in particular simply doesn’t fly.

“Some Democratic officials are spinning this as a local race, but that’s not what the voters we spoke to in Boston told us.

VOTER: ‘Well I think it’s absolutely the health care problem, and also taxes.’”


Finally, Politico’s Ben Smith reports a unique angle of the special election blame game.

Citing an anonymous campaign source, Smith suggests the Coakley campaign feels national Republicans gave Brown more support than Washington Democrats gave her.

“Coakley's failure … was the result of a fundraising problem that national Democrats failed to resolve. Meanwhile, right-wing groups pumped significant amounts of money into Brown’s campaign, allowing him to go up with ads first.”

What do you think is the best explanation for Brown’s victory in Massachusetts? Is it voter frustration with Democrats, or is it something else?

Writer: Newsy Staff

Producer: Nathan Giannini