In short, though Sharron Angle pursued many agendas that are approvable and appreciable, her talent for putting her foot in her mouth with regular frequency clearly showed a lack of emotional control and her inability to properly represent her intentions at all times. The electorate decided not to repose their trust in her to represent the state of Nevada at the Senate due to this single drawback, which has immense implications.
After all, if Sharron Angle consistently tripped over her own words while representing herself, how could she be expected to represent the interests of Nevada at national forums? The answer came in the ballot boxes, and in spite of retaining the support of 44% of the electorate who chose to vote, Sharron Angle lost the seat to Harry Reid, not because Harry was better in all respects, but because she failed to live up to expectations, as far as diplomatic conversation was expected from a Senator-to-be.
Take, for example, her comment related to jobs in Nevada. While jobs are at an all-time low and Nevada is witnessing almost the highest unemployment rates in three decades, highest bankruptcy rates, and highest foreclosure rates, the opposition of Sharron Angle quoted the following comment in one of their mailers:
''People ask me, 'What are you going to do to develop jobs in your state?' Well, that's not my job as a U.S. senator.'' - Sharron Angle, May 14, 2010
Now, that did not go down well with the people. Even though, it was the declared position of Sharron Angle that the job of a US Senator was to help to create policies allowing the private sector to bloom, and of course create jobs in the process, she failed to properly get that across. On the other hand, her opponent Harry Reid kept on that he would be giving jobs to Nevada as soon as he got elected. Nobody questioned that if Harry had the jobs, then why wait till the election while people need those jobs now.
The difference between Sharron Angle and Harry Reid, despite their ideological differences, was principally one of subtlety. Harry was always subtle in his comments and answers and dealt the press with open arms, while Sharron sported the say it and damn the consequences attitude and kept up a virtual embargo against the media. You can only go so far with a pro-gun, anti-muslim, anti-abortion, and anti-Fed agenda, and if on top of that, as a politician, you also turn anti-media then your defeat in polls is expected. It's not that politicians haven't won in this country with similar political positions and agendas, but those who did were subtle, mature, pro-media, and knew well how to play their cards. That in spite of her terrible mistakes, Sharron Angle garnered 44% of the votes cast by the electorate, goes to show that there was enough support out there for her agenda, but she failed herself and others through irresponsible public comments and opposing incursions made by the media. She failed everyone by being too honest, direct, and straightforward, without any regard for the feelings of the electorate or the people's ability to comprehend what she said. Only if Sharron Angle had better control over the voicing of her opinions, she would have been in the Senate today, as most pre-election polls had predicted.
