Will The GOP Pick up Ted Kennedy's Seat?

[Brainster]

At this point it's starting to look like the drubbing the Democrats are going to take in 2010 might start in what is arguably the bluest state in the nation. Consider:

Martha Coakley and the DNC have blasted an "urgent" message (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/internal-memo-to-top-dem-donors-warns-mass-senate-race-is-very-tight-urgent/) to top Democrat donors pleading for funds:

The memo, which was sent over by a source, is the latest sign that the campaign surge of GOPer Scott Brown has caught the Dem establishment off guard. It admits that the mobilization by big national conservative groups for Brown is “working” and acknowledges that the Dem camaign is “having trouble moving independents.”

“Our internal polling shows the race to be a very tight race that means we must do everything we can to ensure we are victorious,” reads the memo, which was written by Coakley’s finance chairman and sent to top donors late yesterday by the DNC.

Polls on the race have varied widely, with most showing Coakley ahead, although Public Policy Polling recently released a poll showing Republican Scott Brown with a 1-point advantage, while Rasmussen went from Coakley +9 to Coakley +2. Part of the problem is identifying who's truly a likely voter in a special election like this.

Liberal blogger Nate Silver notes that turnout isn't the only issue (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/massachusetts-its-not-just-about.html):

If this were just about turnout, I would feel relatively safe about Coakley's position. The Democratic establishment has, somewhat belatedly, woken up to the closeness of the race, and polls like these will wake voters up too. And the Democrats have an experienced GOTV team on hand, with veterans from both the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns.

But if the Rasmussen numbers are right, there's also a chance that Coakley could lose even with a less-than-worst-case turnout scenario. Although I sometimes have concerns about the tightness of Rasmussen's likely voter screens, the fact is that an electorate which gives a 57 percent approval rating to Barack Obama is one that they ought to be reasonably contented with on election day.

Coakley hasn't helped herself any with her latest ad (http://blog.masslive.com/thefray/2010/01/martha_coakley_ad_misspells_massachusetts.html), in which the word "Massachusetts" is misspelled:

Paid for by Massachusettes Democratic Party and Authorized by Martha Coakley for Senate. Approved by Martha Coakley.

InTrade's Coakley shares are at about 79 while Brown is at 25. Still the idea that the Democrat is favored by only 3-1 in liberal Massachusetts is startling.

[Whiplash]

At this point it's starting to look like the drubbing the Democrats are going to take in 2010 might start in what is arguably the bluest state in the nation.


I don't understand. I thought it was all but assured that the Democrats would be in power for the rest of eternity.

[tyr_13]

I don't understand. I thought it was all but assured that the Democrats would be in power for the rest of eternity.

I agree. You don't understand. ;)

[Whiplash]

Could be, could be. ;) I was being sarcastic more than anything.

[quixotecoyote]

That last bit's debatable. :cool:

[Darth Rotor]

Still the idea that the Democrat is favored by only 3-1 in liberal Massachusetts is startling.
One only need win by one vote.

DR

[shemp]

Senate poll: Coakley up 15 points (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/10/senate_poll_coakley_up_15_points/)

Here's the negative ad that you can't get away from if you watch any Boston TV station:

uXqeetngbas

Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of this man? Can you afford to vote for someone who will steal your children, strip them naked, and sell them to Chinese brothels!? He may be planning to require small business owners to hire Al Qaeda terrorists!

Seriously, this ad would make me less likely to vote for Coakley.

[ravdin]

As Scott Brown correctly pointed out- it's not Ted Kennedy's seat. It's the people's seat.

[Brainster]

Coakley played a large part in keeping Gerald Amirault in prison (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31413.html) according to Radley Balko:

In the 1980s, Violet Amirault and her children, Gerald Amirault and Cheryl Amirault LeFave, were convicted of sexually abusing several children at their day care facility. The cases came at the height of the 1980s sex abuse panic, leading to false convictions across the country based on improper questioning of children, mass hysteria about sex abuse and Satan worship, and bogus “recovered-memory” psychotherapy. Coakley didn’t prosecute the Amiraults; her former boss Scott Harshbarger did. But the case against the family began to come apart during her tenure as district attorney. Despite a parole board’s 5-0 recommendation to grant Gerald Amirault clemency and mounting doubts about the evidence against him, Coakley publicly and aggressively lobbied then-Gov. Jane Swift to deny Amirault relief. Amirault remained in prison.

Wall Street Journal reporter Dorothy Rabinowitz, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her coverage of bogus sex abuse cases, recently told The Boston Globe of the Amirault case, “Martha Coakley was a very, very good soldier who showed she would do anything to preserve this horrendous assault on justice.”

The case against Amirault was so ridiculous that both the Wall Street Journal and The Nation editorialized in favor of his release.

[MattusMaximus]

Are there any prediction markets on this question?

InTrade's Coakley shares are at about 79 while Brown is at 25. Still the idea that the Democrat is favored by only 3-1 in liberal Massachusetts is startling.

Doh! Never mind :o

Let me get this straight... the Coakley 79% Brown 25% numbers at InTrade are somehow good news for Republicans? Especially after all their bluster about this race over the last few days? :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

As Scott Brown correctly pointed out- it's not Ted Kennedy's seat. It's the people's seat.

And it seems like from what I've seen the people are very likely to hand the seat to Coakley.

[Peephole]

Q: Will The GOP Pick up Ted Kennedy's Seat?

A: Probably not.

[Brainster]

Let me get this straight... the Coakley 79% Brown 25% numbers at InTrade are somehow good news for Republicans? Especially after all their bluster about this race over the last few days? :rolleyes:

You do understand that we are talking about Massachusetts, right? Where Obama won by a 26-point margin? And that this is the seat that Ted Kennedy (and before him John F. Kennedy) held?

A 25% chance of taking that seat is very good news for the GOP.

And can you imagine the howls of laughter if Sarah Palin had said this:

During Monday's debate with Republican Scott Brown, Coakley questioned why the United States still has troops in Afghanistan. She claimed that the al Qaeda terrorists who were originally targeted by American military action have migrated elsewhere, rendering the mission moot. "They're gone," she said. "They're not there anymore. They're in, apparently Yemen, they're in Pakistan."

I am hopeful that Massachusetts voters will flush this turd.

[Peephole]

No, that seems like a very sensible statement that I and others would applaud Sarah Palin for.

Really, I don't see it?

[Eyeron]

Boy the liberals sure are obsessed with Palin for some strange reason.

[peptoabysmal]

Aggressive’ Coakley aide knocks down scribe (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?&articleid=1225460&format=&page=1&listingType=MA2004#articleFull)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ-iQ7vcwqo

[Whiplash]

Boy the liberals sure are obsessed with Palin for some strange reason.


Yes, it's confusing because, on the one hand, they are often going out of their way to practically beg for her to be the candidate. Statements about how it would mean certain victory for Obama. It would be the worst move the GOP could ever make. Please, please GOP, NOMINATE HER!

And yet.. they beat her down viciously, which demonstrates that they fear her. You don't go to that much effort to destroy someone who is actually zero threat to you whatsoever.. and that you actually WANT as a nominee. That doesn't even make any sense. They want her to run, so they can beat her.. but also doing all they can to destroy her, so she can't win. It's mind boggling.

[MattusMaximus]

You do understand that we are talking about Massachusetts, right? Where Obama won by a 26-point margin? And that this is the seat that Ted Kennedy (and before him John F. Kennedy) held?

A 25% chance of taking that seat is very good news for the GOP.

And can you imagine the howls of laughter if Sarah Palin had said this:

I am hopeful that Massachusetts voters will flush this turd.

Intrade is currently predicting an 85% chance that Coakley will win the seat. That's an increase in her favor of 6-7% in 24 hours.

How do you feel now?

[Brainster]

Intrade is currently predicting an 85% chance that Coakley will win the seat. That's an increase in her favor of 6-7% in 24 hours.

How do you feel now?

About 6-7% worse than I did yesterday. :D

[MattusMaximus]

About 6-7% worse than I did yesterday. :D

Zing! ;)

[Peephole]

YAnd yet.. they beat her down viciously, which demonstrates that they fear her. You don't go to that much effort to destroy someone who is actually zero threat to you whatsoever.. and that you actually WANT as a nominee. That doesn't even make any sense. They want her to run, so they can beat her.. but also doing all they can to destroy her, so she can't win. It's mind boggling.
No, not really. You just don't understand comedy.

[Bob Blaylock]

Boy the liberals sure are obsessed with Palin for some strange reason.

Yes, it's confusing because, on the one hand, they are often going out of their way to practically beg for her to be the candidate. Statements about how it would mean certain victory for Obama. It would be the worst move the GOP could ever make. Please, please GOP, NOMINATE HER!

And yet.. they beat her down viciously, which demonstrates that they fear her. You don't go to that much effort to destroy someone who is actually zero threat to you whatsoever.. and that you actually WANT as a nominee. That doesn't even make any sense. They want her to run, so they can beat her.. but also doing all they can to destroy her, so she can't win. It's mind boggling.


I'm very much reminded of something else. During the 1988 campaign, after George Bush had secured the nomination, attention turned to who he might select as a running mate. The news media gave a fair amount of attention to several possible choices, but really focussed on a young senator from Indiana, “A Robert Redford lookalike”, who they built up as some kind of brilliant young political prodigy. They weren't at all subtle about putting forth the notion that it was he who Bush should choose as his running mate; and in fact, that's who Bush chose. From the moment that this choice was announced, the press turned very viciously against him, and we got to spend the next eight years being treated by every possible effort on the part of the press to depict Dan Quayle as immature and unintelligent.

[Ausmerican]

I'm very much reminded of something else. During the 1988 campaign, after George Bush had secured the nomination, attention turned to who he might select as a running mate. The news media gave a fair amount of attention to several possible choices, but really focussed on a young senator from Indiana, “A Robert Redford lookalike”, who they built up as some kind of brilliant young political prodigy. They weren't at all subtle about putting forth the notion that it was he who Bush should choose as his running mate; and in fact, that's who Bush chose. From the moment that this choice was announced, the press turned very viciously against him, and we got to spend the next eight years being treated by every possible effort on the part of the press to depict Dan Quayle as immature and unintelligent.

Potato- potatoe.

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."

"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."

"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared.'"

"Welcome to President Bush, Mrs. Bush, and my fellow astronauts."

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit . . . Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."

"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."

"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy -- but that could change."

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."

"The future will be better tomorrow."

"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."

"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history."

"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe."

"I am not part of the problem. I am a Republican."

"I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix."

"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."

"When I have been asked during these last weeks who caused the riots and the killing in L.A., my answer has been direct and simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to blame."

"Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it."

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."

"For NASA, space is still a high priority."

"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system."

"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."

Yeah it took a lot of effort by the media. They had to hold a microphone out to him.

[Alan]

Boy the liberals sure are obsessed with Palin for some strange reason.
...Brainster was the person who brought Palin up regarding that quote. Peephole was replying to that.

And can you imagine the howls of laughter if Sarah Palin had said this:

During Monday's debate with Republican Scott Brown, Coakley questioned why the United States still has troops in Afghanistan. She claimed that the al Qaeda terrorists who were originally targeted by American military action have migrated elsewhere, rendering the mission moot. "They're gone," she said. "They're not there anymore. They're in, apparently Yemen, they're in Pakistan."
I am hopeful that Massachusetts voters will flush this turd.
No, that seems like a very sensible statement that I and others would applaud Sarah Palin for.

Really, I don't see it?

[Ausmerican]

Also in the Palin gets a deal with Fox thread it was Brainster that implied that Palin running in 2012 would give Obama a "free ride to reelection". For some reason Whiplash and Eyeron are in denial that it isn't just liberals that think she is a flake, it is quite a few conservatives as well.

[Brainster]

Back to the Massachusetts senate race, Stuart Rothenberg's Rothenberg Political Report (http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2010/01/ma-senate-moved-to-toss-up.html) has moved the race into the "Toss Up" category:

Democratic desperation and other compelling evidence strongly suggest that Democrats may well lose the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat in Tuesday’s special election. Because of this, we are moving our rating of the race from Narrow Advantage for the Incumbent Party to Toss-Up.

Whatever the shortcomings of the Coakley campaign (and they certainly exist), this race has become about change, President Obama and Democratic control of all of the levers of power in Washington, D.C. Brown has “won” the “free media” over the past few days, and if he continues to do so, he will win the election.

Gail Collins, editorial page editor for the New York Times writes (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/opinion/14collins.html?partner=rss&emc=rss):

If Massachusetts was the Department of Homeland Security, the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s senate seat would have the Democrats about four-fifths of the way up the terror alert code.

Orange: You know, it really doesn’t matter whether you win by a million votes or one vote, just so long as you win.

The campaign has not hit red yet, although, for the Democrats, the whole world has begun to look orange with dark tints. Like a decaying pumpkin. It cannot be a good sign when the Massachusetts secretary of state has to deny rumors that he plans to stall certification of the election results until after the health care bill is passed.

She also goes into a bizarre digression about how unfair the filibuster is, claiming at the end that this is the reason why Obama's not getting anything done.

The Boston Globe claims she's running the race smartly (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2010/01/13/campaigns_brevity_shapes_coakley_image_on_trail/), but this comment is already rebounding against her:

Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.

“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that. “This is a special election. And I know that I have the support of Kim Driscoll. And I now know the members of the [Salem] School Committee, who know far more people than I could ever meet.’’

Well, hey, if Kim Driscoll and the Salem School Committee's on board, who needs the folks at Fenway Park?

[AlBell]

Perhaps Coakley will move to Belgium thereby increasing the moral fiber of both the USA and Belgium.

http://bigjournalism.com/ghewson/2010/01/14/marthas-greatest-hits-the-things-the-democrats-would-like-you-to-forget-about-candidate-coakley/

[Brainster]

Perhaps Coakley will move to Belgium thereby increasing the moral fiber of both the USA and Belgium.

http://bigjournalism.com/ghewson/2010/01/14/marthas-greatest-hits-the-things-the-democrats-would-like-you-to-forget-about-candidate-coakley/

Wow. Just wow. Here's another summary of the case (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/06/some_saw_coakley_as_lax_on_05_rape_case/), from the Boston Globe, which has endorsed Coakley.

[Brainster]

The reliable Huffington Post has done some excellent opposition research investigative reporting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/ma-senate-candidate-brown_n_422399.html) on Scott Brown and determined that this supposed man of the people is a wealthy elitist, unlike, say, Ted Kennedy.

According to a review of Brown's 2008 financial disclosure report -- which was filed April 2009 and appears to be the most current document available -- Brown and his wife own (at least then) five separate properties. The list includes a 3,000-square-foot home near a lake in Wrentham, Massachusetts, a condo in Boston and a time share in Aruba.

A time share in Aruba and a 3,000 SF mansion? He must be some sort of plutocrat! Get this comparison:

Brown's wealth still pales in comparison to the state's other senator, John Kerry (D-Mass.), the richest member of Congress with a net worth of $167 million. But, like Kerry, his financial disclosures could prove problematic to his public image.

This is not the latest anti-Brown ad, but it's a pretty good parody:

mcFVRQi3ZEo

But President Obama has cut an ad for Coakley; will it work out better than his pitch for the Chicago Olympics?

iylgBF3KTQA

Not sure he should be pressing the "change" message.

[Brainster]

Suffolk University/Channel 7 poll: Brown up by 4 (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20100114brown-out_poll_shows_scott_brown_trumping_martha_coakley/srvc=home&position=0).

Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error, the underdog’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.

“It’s a Brown-out,” said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.”

InTrade is at 74-27. Coakley did better in a Blue Mass Group poll (http://www.bluemassgroup.com/diary/18361/exclusive-bmgresearch-2000-poll-coakley-leads-4941) (up 8) but you can probably guess what "Blue Mass" indicates; it's a liberal website. They also showed a high number of independents (11%) voting for third-party candidate Joseph Kennedy (not related to the dynasty). Here's an interesting endorsement of Coakley (http://www.bluemassgroup.com/diary/18353/yes-it-sucks-yes-you-have-to-vote-coakley) at that same website:

Let's get this out of the way. You might not want to vote for Martha Coakley. You might think she deserves what's she's getting after an absentee, self-satisfied campaign (why should I bail her out?). You likely want to send a message to everyone from the attorney general all the way to every Democratic official in Washington, DC. Odds are you didn't vote for her in the primary. And, you might be wondering if it'll make a difference who wins this Tuesday.

You got every reason to be pissed, but it needs to be clear: not voting for Coakley is the same as voting for Brown. And voting for Brown is a very, very bad thing.

The flop sweat is getting palpable.

[WildCat]

The New York Times and Washington Post are calling the polls even now. The Dems are in panic mode.

And everyone's speculating whether the Libertarian candidate named Joe Kennedy will siphon off more votes from Brown by conservatives or Coakley by liberals who don't realize he's no relation to the other Mass. Kennedys.

[MattusMaximus]

Wow, there was a LOT of volitility on Intrade over the last couple of days... it went from Coakley at 79% yesterday to 85% this morning to 75% now. And Brown wobbled up and down too, but is now at 25%, pretty much the same as yesterday. So after a day or so of wild swings, it's basically the same 3-1 breakdown as was before. What gives with such wild swings?

[MattusMaximus]

The New York Times and Washington Post are calling the polls even now. The Dems are in panic mode.

Well, I'll agree that they got a bit of a wakeup call, but fortunately they clued In early enough to mount a serious gotv effort. I think some of the "fear" that some people are harping on is, at least from the Dem side, meant to get the Dem base motivated. And from what I've seen it is working.

And everyone's speculating whether the Libertarian candidate named Joe Kennedy will siphon off more votes from Brown by conservatives or Coakley by liberals who don't realize he's no relation to the other Mass. Kennedys.

I was wondering about that too. Does anyone know of any polls that factor this third-party guy into account?

This is interesting, I'll admit :)

[Brainster]

Wow, there was a LOT of volitility on Intrade over the last couple of days... it went from Coakley at 79% yesterday to 85% this morning to 75% now. And Brown wobbled up and down too, but is now at 25%, pretty much the same as yesterday. So after a day or so of wild swings, it's basically the same 3-1 breakdown as was before. What gives with such wild swings?

Those aren't that wild swings. Either Coakley's shares or Brown's shares are going to be worth 0 late Tuesday night, and the other person's shares will be worth 100.

[MattusMaximus]

Well, according to Intrade, things are tightening... Coakley is at 65% while Brown's at 35%. If it keeps going this way it really could be the nail-biter that many pundits are talking about.

Btw, I did find one other prediction market on this question, though I'm not sure about its reputation...

Inkling Markets (http://home.inklingmarkets.com/markets/23078)
Coakley 75.6%
Brown 24.4%

These two markets differ on the absolute numbers, but one thing's for sure - they are both showing a shift in favor of Brown. I'm not sure it will be enough of a shift by next Teusday to give him the election, especially now that the Democratic machine in MA is getting revved up for GOTV. But based upon what I've seen up until now, if Brown had another week to campaign or if the Dems hadn't clued in until now about the danger of losing the seat, then these markets would be flipped.

This is going to be more interesting than I once thought. Grab the popcorn :popcorn1

[Brainster]

Nate Silver (liberal but honest poll analyst) says it's a tossup (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/ok-its-toss-up.html).

That's a toss-up, ladies and germs! Both candidates are tied at 48 percent on the nose.

You can still argue that Coakley is favored -- and I might even believe you. Hell, I might even wind up making that argument myself. But at this point, you can't really cite the public polling as a data point in favor of your argument.

Byron York (conservative but honest) says (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Massachusetts-Bottom-has-fallen-out-of-Coakleys-poll-numbers-Dems-prepare-to-explain-defeat-protect-Obama-81681862.html):

"I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."

There are claims that it's the candidate, not a general rejection of Obama's policies, and there is evidence for that:

Intensifying the gloom, the Democrat says, is the fact that the same polls showing Coakley falling behind also show President Obama with a healthy approval rating in the state. "With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn't be happening, but it is," the Democrat says.

Note as well that while Coakley's sinking at InTrade, the market does not seem to be seeing this as a harbinger of things to come in the midterms, where the Democrats are still at 65% to retain the House, the same place they were last week.

ETA: InTrade now has Coakley at 56, Brown at 45.

[Random]

Basically, it’s just a matter of Coakley running a great primary race, then saying “I win” and walking away. It’s Massachusetts for crying out loud! The idea that a Republican might have a shot at the Senate seat is silly, so Coakley didn’t even try (thereby making it not so silly). All this shows so far is that if a Republican candidate spends a large amount of money and campaigns heavily in Massachusetts against a Democratic candidate who basically doesn’t show up, he might be able to come close enough so some polls show it as a statistical tie.

[Brainster]

Pajamas Media Poll stunner (http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/01/14/massachusetts-shocker-brown-up-15-in-pajamas-mediacrosstarget-poll/):

A new poll taken Thursday evening for Pajamas Media by CrossTarget – an Alexandria VA survey research firm – shows Scott Brown, a Republican, leading Martha Coakley, a Democrat, by 15.4% in Tuesday’s special election for the open Massachusetts US Senate seat. The poll of 946 likely voters was conducted by telephone using interactive voice technology (IVR) and has a margin of error of +/- 3.19%.

About the only negative I can see looking at the poll is that they should have rotated the order of the candidates. But Coakley's negatives are startling; 50.5%. Note in particular that self-described Democrats outnumbered self-described Republicans by about 80%, so it does not appear to be a case of oversampling GOP voters.

Full disclosure: I was employed as a blogger for Pajamas Media in 2006-2007.

ETA: Real Clear Politics points out that the Democrats in Massachusetts (http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/15/who-to-blame-if-brown-wins/) have only themselves (and John Kerry) to blame for there even being a race. In 2004, they were worried that if Kerry won the presidency, the governor (Republican Mitt Romney at the time) would have the power to nominate a replacement to serve out the remainder of his term. So they changed the law, requiring a special election be held. The irony is that now Deval Patrick (a Democrat) is the governor, so if they'd just left the law as it was, Patrick could have appointed a successor to Kennedy and the Republicans would have not had this opportunity.

[MattusMaximus]

ETA: InTrade now has Coakley at 56, Brown at 45.

:eek: Wow, not good news for her, but this seems to be contrary to the only other prediction market I've seen on this question...

Inkling Markets (http://home.inklingmarkets.com/markets/23078)
Coakley 87.3%
Brown 12.7%

What the hell?! Can anyone explain this to me? :confused:

Well, there are some other variables to consider, which could add considerable volatility to the prediction markets - such as Obama's visit to MA this weekend. I think that could end up tipping it to Coakley, because if the GOP is already completely fired up to get out and vote in MA I don't see how a visit by Obama can possibly fire them up any more. On the flip side, it could end up being a big boost for the Democratic GOTV efforts - which could put Coakley over the top. We'll see.

On another note, I read something (can't recall where) that the timing of the election might be even more interesting. With the U.S. Senate slated to hold a final vote on health care reform within a week or so, the question (assuming Brown wins, which is a big "maybe") comes down to when exactly Brown would be certified as the new MA Senator and when he could assume his seat in Congress.

Will he be certified in time to "kill" the health care legislation, or not? I read that the certification process could take up to two weeks in MA (don't know why), and if this is indeed the case a GOP upset in this race would not effect the outcome of the Senate vote on health care reform. Surely the GOP will cry "dirty tricks", and they might be right, but I have a really hard time believing that if the shoe were on the other foot it wouldn't go down the same way.

If Brown wins, will there be other implications? Hell yes. The GOP establishment will get a strong boost, the Dems will be crying in their beer, and the Tea Party folks will feel left out. From what I've seen, Brown fits the mold of the more moderate-to-liberal Republican that so many TP-types despise; but he is exactly the kind of person necessary to win in that section of the country.

Hopefully, assuming a Brown win, the GOP will learn that they need to move away from the Tea Party madness and more towards the center. Can we hope?

[MattusMaximus]

ETA: Real Clear Politics points out that the Democrats in Massachusetts (http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/15/who-to-blame-if-brown-wins/) have only themselves (and John Kerry) to blame for there even being a race. In 2004, they were worried that if Kerry won the presidency, the governor (Republican Mitt Romney at the time) would have the power to nominate a replacement to serve out the remainder of his term. So they changed the law, requiring a special election be held. The irony is that now Deval Patrick (a Democrat) is the governor, so if they'd just left the law as it was, Patrick could have appointed a successor to Kennedy and the Republicans would have not had this opportunity.

The irony indeed :)

[Brainster]

MM, it looks like that other market is just for funsies. Quoting from their home page (http://home.inklingmarkets.com/):

Getting Started

1. Sign up to trade and create your own market. Begin with $5,000 in virtual currency.

The IEM and InTrade are actual real-dollar markets, not "virtual currency".

[Random]

Will he be certified in time to "kill" the health care legislation, or not? I read that the certification process could take up to two weeks in MA (don't know why), and if this is indeed the case a GOP upset in this race would not effect the outcome of the Senate vote on health care reform. Surely the GOP will cry "dirty tricks", and they might be right, but I have a really hard time believing that if the shoe were on the other foot it wouldn't go down the same way.

Al Franken.

Of course, complaining about activities that they themselves engaged in a year ago isn't really hypocracy for some strange reason that only applies to Republicans.

[Brainster]

When asked what experience she has in foreign policy, and whether she had done significant traveling, Coakley responded:

EZRzsFjykGA

Her sister can see the Middle East from her house?:D

[WildCat]

I think the main problem for Coakley is she seemed to be taking the election for granted, and came across as thinking the seat was her inheritance from Kennedy and she didn't have to work for it. I think this turns off a lot of voters. And Brown is fairly moderate, definitely on the left end of the GOP spectrum. And his daughter was in the final 24 of American Idol a few years ago! :)

[Random]

And Brown is fairly moderate, definitely on the left end of the GOP spectrum.

You do know that Scott Brown has tied himself to the Tea Party crowd, right? Well, he has hosted at least one Tea Party event, then claimed not to remember who they were when more mainstream press folks asked.

Everything I have seen of him screams hard right. Out of idle curiousity, what makes you think he is moderate?

[Brainster]

You do know that Scott Brown has tied himself to the Tea Party crowd, right? Well, he has hosted at least one Tea Party event, then claimed not to remember who they were when more mainstream press folks asked.

Everything I have seen of him screams hard right. Out of idle curiousity, what makes you think he is moderate?

This is the latest meme (http://bshor.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/scott-brown-is-a-more-liberal-republican-than-dede-scozzafava/):

Brown’s score puts him at the 34th percentile of his party in Massachusetts over the 1995-2006 time period. In other words, two thirds of other Massachusetts Republican state legislators were more conservative than he was. This is evidence for my claim that he’s a liberal even in his own party. What’s remarkable about this is the fact that Massachusetts Republicans are the most, or nearly the most, liberal Republicans in the entire country!

[Brainster]

Gerald Amirault on Martha Coakley:

aSD7k5QK-jY

[WildCat]

Wow, latest poll has Brown up 50%-46%, and Obama's going to Mass. to campaign for Coakley.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/us/politics/16massachusetts.html

[MattusMaximus]

I think the main problem for Coakley is she seemed to be taking the election for granted, and came across as thinking the seat was her inheritance from Kennedy and she didn't have to work for it. I think this turns off a lot of voters. And Brown is fairly moderate, definitely on the left end of the GOP spectrum.

Yup, I agree 100%. This kind of hubris has sunk more than one politician over the years... it's always interesting to see that some people never seem to learn from the mistakes of others.

If Coakley wins, which is still more likely than not, I hope that this serves as a serious wake-up call for her (and the Dems in general) about not taking anything for granted.

If she loses, a distinct possibility at this point it seems, then I hope the Democrats learn a thing or two about picking more decent candidates who are serious about running for office. Perhaps they need to get kicked in the ass a bit in order to right the ship, so to speak.

Still, it will be interesting to see (if Brown wins) how he relates to the Tea Party crowd once in office. I can see them getting pissed off if he doesn't take the hard-line conservative stance they'd like to see in Congress. Of course, that kind of stance won't sit well with the wider MA populace.

As I said... :popcorn6

[MattusMaximus]

MM, it looks like that other market is just for funsies. Quoting from their home page (http://home.inklingmarkets.com/):

The IEM and InTrade are actual real-dollar markets, not "virtual currency".

Excellent. Thanks for noting that, it explains much.

[MattusMaximus]

ETA: InTrade now has Coakley at 56, Brown at 45.

Now it's Coakley 60.0 and Brown 37.0

I wonder if the announcement that President Obama is going to be in MA on Sunday has had an effect? As I stated earlier, I think the GOP base is already pretty much maxxed out on motivation, so a backlash from Obama visiting cannot motivate them any more. However, a good old inspiring speech by Obama could do wonders for motivating Democratic voters and kick-starting liberal GOTV efforts in the state.

ETA: Btw, to put on my partisan hat, if you're interested in GOTV efforts to help the Dems hold onto the seat... http://my.barackobama.com/CoakleyN2N

[Brainster]

Now it's Coakley 60.0 and Brown 37.0

I wonder if the announcement that President Obama is going to be in MA on Sunday has had an effect? As I stated earlier, I think the GOP base is already pretty much maxxed out on motivation, so a backlash from Obama visiting cannot motivate them any more. However, a good old inspiring speech by Obama could do wonders for motivating Democratic voters and kick-starting liberal GOTV efforts in the state.

Well, it got Chicago the Olympics... oh, wait!

[MattusMaximus]

Well, it got Chicago the Olympics... oh, wait!

Zing! ;)

Brainster, what are we going to do for fun after this special election is over?

[Brainster]

Zing! ;)

Brainster, what are we going to do for fun after this special election is over?

Wait until the next one comes around.:D

That's the thing about politics; there always some election coming up. It's like following sports.

[Brainster]

Coakley dismisses Curt Schilling as "another Yankee fan":

OmNpcMHwOa8

InTrade now has it at 54-47 Coakley. Will Red Sox nation rise up and smite Martha for heresy against the god of the Bloody Sock?

[shemp]

Did she get her campaign people from the Rudy Giuliani Political Campaign School? She certainly has the self-importance and cluelessness parts down pat.

[Brainster]

Not really Coakley's latest ad, but it might be her best hope:
2OM5udILoC4

InTrade has the race dead even.

ETA: Just refreshed: Brown 55, Coakley 45. The fat lady is moving towards the front of the stage.

[MaGZ]

Yes, it's confusing because, on the one hand, they are often going out of their way to practically beg for her to be the candidate. Statements about how it would mean certain victory for Obama. It would be the worst move the GOP could ever make. Please, please GOP, NOMINATE HER!

And yet.. they beat her down viciously, which demonstrates that they fear her. You don't go to that much effort to destroy someone who is actually zero threat to you whatsoever.. and that you actually WANT as a nominee. That doesn't even make any sense. They want her to run, so they can beat her.. but also doing all they can to destroy her, so she can't win. It's mind boggling.


They don't fear her but the people that are backing her. The liberals are always fearful of someone coming along on a White horse.

A populist revolt is their worst nightmare.

[MaGZ]

You do know that Scott Brown has tied himself to the Tea Party crowd, right? Well, he has hosted at least one Tea Party event, then claimed not to remember who they were when more mainstream press folks asked.

Everything I have seen of him screams hard right. Out of idle curiousity, what makes you think he is moderate?

So this makes him a brownshirt?

[shemp]

So this makes him a brownshirt?

It makes him a brownnose.

[dudalb]

Yup, I agree 100%. This kind of hubris has sunk more than one politician over the years... it's always interesting to see that some people never seem to learn from the mistakes of others.

If Coakley wins, which is still more likely than not, I hope that this serves as a serious wake-up call for her (and the Dems in general) about not taking anything for granted.

If she loses, a distinct possibility at this point it seems, then I hope the Democrats learn a thing or two about picking more decent candidates who are serious about running for office. Perhaps they need to get kicked in the ass a bit in order to right the ship, so to speak.

Still, it will be interesting to see (if Brown wins) how he relates to the Tea Party crowd once in office. I can see them getting pissed off if he doesn't take the hard-line conservative stance they'd like to see in Congress. Of course, that kind of stance won't sit well with the wider MA populace.

As I said... :popcorn6

Sadly, a lot of Democrats will probably just blame the stupid blue collar voters.
Sad to say, there is a element of elitism in the Democratic party toward Blue Collar and Rural voters that has caused them problems in the past, and they just do not seem to be able to get rid of. Bring the problem up, and a lot of Dems deny it exists. And you have seen this attitude displayed here on a number of occasions.
But Hubris is a factor too. Remember a year ago at this time a number of people here were dancing on the graves of the GOP?

[dudalb]

Did she get her campaign people from the Rudy Giuliani Political Campaign School? She certainly has the self-importance and cluelessness parts down pat.

I think the main problem is the Dems thought they had the race in the bag, and did not really put much effort into the campaign. Always a bad mistake.

[novice skeptic]

Now it's Coakley 60.0 and Brown 37.0



Not any more.53-47 Brown.

[novice skeptic]

I think the main problem is the Dems thought they had the race in the bag, and did not really put much effort into the campaign. Always a bad mistake.

This isn't really all that true. The Dems raised a ton of money and used it. Her ads are nonstop on boston tv. However, Coakley's problem is/was that the more people see and hear her the less they like her. With Brown it has been the opposite. Whether true or not his perception in Mass. has become that he is a decent "regular" guy. You can argue whether that makes him an effective legislator or not.

OTOH Coakley has a few strikes against her with her handling of some high profile criminal cases. The Fells Acre case is just one. There is also a bit of an uproar about her handling of the alleged rape of a child by a police officer.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/06/some_saw_coakley_as_lax_on_05_rape_case/

[Peephole]

:eek: Wow, not good news for her, but this seems to be contrary to the only other prediction market I've seen on this question...

Inkling Markets (http://home.inklingmarkets.com/markets/23078)
Coakley 87.3%
Brown 12.7%

What the hell?! Can anyone explain this to me? :confused:
Explain what? It's a prediction market, it doesn't mean anything.

[Whiplash]

Explain what? It's a prediction market, it doesn't mean anything.


I believe it has been shown, historically, to correlate with what happens.

Not any surefire thing by any means, but enough connection that simply handwaving it as completely worthless has got to be a matter of some deep denial.

[Brainster]

Well, the mud is definitely starting to fly from the Democrats. How bad is it? The Democrats are claiming that Brown wanted hospitals to turn away rape victims. Even liberal bloggers are appalled (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/dem-mail-scott-brown-wants-hospitals-to-turn-away-all-rape-victims/):

The mailer — paid for by the Massachusetts Democratic Party — says the claim is based on “a law to let emergency hospitals turn away rape victims in need of emergency contraception.” That appears to be a reference to a Brown-sponsored 2005 amendment that would have exempted hospital personnel, on religious grounds, to inform victims of the availability of the morning after pill.

As Coakley’s own Web site says, after Brown’s amendment was rejected, he voted in favor of the bill to require emergency rooms to provide rape victims with emergency contraceptives, and the whole debate seems to be more nuanced than the mailer suggests.

Over at Firedoglake (top 5 liberal blogger), a gal tombstoned at Democratic Underground writes of her own disenchantment with Coakley (http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/24379):

In this post, I did not advocate for others to not vote for Coakley. It was an expression of my own anger. Quite frankly, I still do not know if I will vote for her or abstain from voting on Tuesday. This is not something I am taking lightly and I have been struggling with this issue as a ethical crisis. I stated in the post that I would be posting a deeper explanation of the struggle I was experiencing, as I believe it coincides with the struggle of many in the democratic party. In fact, I was following up with this very post and after two hours of emotional reflection and writing, I went to launch it on the site. But, when I went to launch the post, I discovered that I was thrown out of the community, and I was never able to share this important experience with the group.

[Brainster]

I believe it has been shown, historically, to correlate with what happens.

Not any surefire thing by any means, but enough connection that simply handwaving it as completely worthless has got to be a matter of some deep denial.

I'd say that it's a pretty good barometer of where the conventional wisdom is on an issue or election; not a prediction.

Glad to see you stuck around in the politics sub-forum; I certainly appreciate your posts.

[Undesired Walrus]

When's the election?

[leftysergeant]

From the moment that this choice was announced, the press turned very viciously against him, and we got to spend the next eight years being treated by every possible effort on the part of the press to depict Dan Quayle as immature and unintelligent.

But that's their job, to tell us what idiots idiots in power are.

[leftysergeant]

Aggressive’ Coakley aide knocks down scribe (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?&articleid=1225460&format=&page=1&listingType=MA2004#articleFull)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ-iQ7vcwqo

Give it a rest. The AG was finished answering questions and had walked away from real news organizations and some nut bar from a lunatic rag tried to push his way up to talk to her and an aide reacted as though to a threat.

whoop

[mhaze]

When's the election?Tuesday we see if Coakley jumped the shark.

[WildCat]

Give it a rest. The AG was finished answering questions and had walked away from real news organizations and some nut bar from a lunatic rag tried to push his way up to talk to her and an aide reacted as though to a threat.

whoop
Yeah right, that's why Coakley and her aide lied about it before coming clean and apologizing after the video came out.

But at least you are consistent, a good Marxist always knows that eliminating and bullying the free press is good for policy.

[novice skeptic]

Give it a rest. The AG was finished answering questions and had walked away from real news organizations and some nut bar from a lunatic rag tried to push his way up to talk to her and an aide reacted as though to a threat.

whoop

I'm just guessing that if it was a Palin aide pushing down someone from Mother Jones you'd have a different take.

[technoextreme]

This isn't really all that true. The Dems raised a ton of money and used it. Her ads are nonstop on boston tv. However, Coakley's problem is/was that the more people see and hear her the less they like her. With Brown it has been the opposite. Whether true or not his perception in Mass. has become that he is a decent "regular" guy. You can argue whether that makes him an effective legislator or not.

OTOH Coakley has a few strikes against her with her handling of some high profile criminal cases. The Fells Acre case is just one. There is also a bit of an uproar about her handling of the alleged rape of a child by a police officer.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/06/some_saw_coakley_as_lax_on_05_rape_case/
Wow that is *********** amazing considering that one of Brown's ad makes me think he is a jackass.

[Thunder]

Even if the GOP wins the seat, we can still pass health-care reform.

we still will have 59 seats, and that's a damn good majority.

[technoextreme]

Sadly, a lot of Democrats will probably just blame the stupid blue collar voters.

I'd hate to tell you but they would be right. After seeing Scott Brown supporters in action I saw a bunch of racist stupid people.

[DJW]

I'd hate to tell you but they would be right. After seeing Scott Brown supporters in action I saw a bunch of racist stupid people.

Yeah, let's all pray to your god that you have evidence that you can present to back up your assessment of Scott Brown's supporters "in action".

[Magyar]

Yeah, let's all pray to your god that you have evidence that you can present to back up your assessment of Scott Brown's supporters "in action".

Well, I just had a acouple come to my door. UNFORTUNATELY I didn't have my cell phone handy to hit the record

But I was informed in no uncertain terms that a vote for Coakley will insure my soul in hell.

I tried to get them to stay but -apparently they are making the rounds in my neighborhood with a bus full of people and they were being summoned to go.

[technoextreme]

Yeah, let's all pray to your god that you have evidence that you can present to back up your assessment of Scott Brown's supporters "in action".
For ****s sake. I'm a *********** idiot who doesn't know how to hit a *********** button. I missed the part where I was called a brainwashed socialist by proxy. And yes by and large I know that these are probably the exception but can't you do better when the president arrives? Also, what the hell is it with this flag? I saw this flag a few times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag
Answer: Tea party.
Saw this once:
http://obamalies.net/images/obama_joker_face.jpg

[applecorped]

For ****s sake. I'm a *********** idiot......

Why? Are you voting for Martha?:p

[DJW]

Well, I just had a acouple come to my door. UNFORTUNATELY I didn't have my cell phone handy to hit the record

But I was informed in no uncertain terms that a vote for Coakley will insure my soul in hell.

I tried to get them to stay but -apparently they are making the rounds in my neighborhood with a bus full of people and they were being summoned to go.

Hmmmm....Hell insurance. You might be on to something.:p

Thanks for the 1st person account. I can't say that I'm suprised.

[technoextreme]

Why? Are you voting for Martha?:p
I'm a New Yorker. Despite that I think they would both compete fairly well in an idiot race. Coakley for her bad handling of some issues. Brown for basically admitting that he is an idiot about the constitution.
Why?
Because I missed a rant from a supporter basically saying that my university I go to was a place that brainwashed people into becoming socialists. As I told my mother. Its the type of thing that you can't possibly think people believe but then you go and see it and you realize that people do think that. It sounds so stupid without the video :(.

[DJW]

For ****s sake. I'm a *********** idiot who doesn't know how to hit a *********** button. I missed the part where I was called a brainwashed socialist by proxy. And yes by and large I know that these are probably the exception but can't you do better when the president arrives? Also, what the hell is it with this flag? I saw this flag a few times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag
Answer: Tea party.
Saw this once:
http://obamalies.net/images/obama_joker_face.jpg

You made an accusation that you should have backed up with something substantive. That's all. You wrote that they were "a bunch of racist stupid people". You should produce some evidence in support of that. The Gadsden flag and Obama as the Joker aren't doing it for me. Sorry.

[technoextreme]

You made an accusation that you should have backed up with something substantive. That's all. You wrote that they were "a bunch of racist stupid people". You should produce some evidence in support of that. The Gadsden flag and Obama as the Joker aren't doing it for me. Sorry.
So what you are saying is that I call you a homicidal mass murderer and you would have no problem?

[MattusMaximus]

Even if the GOP wins the seat, we can still pass health-care reform.

we still will have 59 seats, and that's a damn good majority.

That's a good point. Just remember how crazy things were after the election last year... the Dems had 58 seats in the Senate, and the MN race was in limbo. Not to mention, Specter then switched parties - I couldn't believe the Dems even got to 60 in the first place.

Now, having said that I do think a GOP win in MA on Tuesday will give them a boost. But then again a lot of things can happen between then and November. I think it would be a mistake for either party to take anything for granted, as the crazy events of the last year have illustrated.

Lastly, if Brown wins on Tuesday, I see a silver lining from my somewhat centrist Democratic view... 1. Brown is, from what I can see on the national stage, a pretty liberal Republican, and I've been lamenting their absence of
late in the GOP. 2. This could very well force some bipartisanship in the Senate... I hope.

But... it ain't over 'til it's over :)

[MattusMaximus]

Incidentally, on the prospects for passing health care reform, I think it will still happen. That's because it will likely take a couple of weeks to certify the election, probably due to the question of absentee ballots, and in that time the Senate will have voted. And if that doesn't happen, there are other ways.

[MattusMaximus]

Btw, I know it might be too much to ask, but could we PLEASE dispense with the nonsense accusations and stories, from both sides?

I can't believe I am going to say it, but some of you need to take a page from former Presidents Clinton and Bush :rolleyes:

[Brainster]

I'd hate to tell you but they would be right. After seeing Scott Brown supporters in action I saw a bunch of racist stupid people.

So after seeing Scott Brown supporters you saw some Coakley supporters?
:rolleyes:

[Just thinking]

Incidentally, on the prospects for passing health care reform, I think it will still happen. That's because it will likely take a couple of weeks to certify the election, probably due to the question of absentee ballots, and in that time the Senate will have voted.

That would be political suicide for the Dems ... and they know it. Think for a moment just how signifying a Brown victory would be, and then shove the HC bill down the nation's throat using that angle? Never happen --- besides, I don't believe that his 10 day election certification delay is absolutely required.

And if that doesn't happen, there are other ways.

Yes ... the house would have to accept the senate bill as it stands. Is that likely? And do they want to pass this massive a social bill without bi-partisan support? --- especially in the event of a Brown victory? (You can also bet that the Dems will be rehashing what happened in Virginia and New Jersey this past election.)

[Just thinking]

So after seeing Scott Brown supporters you saw some Coakley supporters?

Careful ... he didn't say reporter shovers.

;)

[ProbeX]

Incidentally, on the prospects for passing health care reform, I think it will still happen. That's because it will likely take a couple of weeks to certify the election, probably due to the question of absentee ballots, and in that time the Senate will have voted. And if that doesn't happen, there are other ways.

Stategically, if the GOP truly believes the bill will be a monumental failure (as they often claim) they might as well allow it to pass so they can later blame the Dems for its failure, get back into power and reverse the minor changes made.

But if the GOP is successful at blocking the bill at this time, the public will likely resent nothing being done, over whatever minimal changes the bill would have affected. They will blame the GOP, believing the GOP thinks the status quo re: healthcare is acceptable, which could present a real problem for the GOP in the next election.

[Whiplash]

ProbeX I'd say that analysis is only accurate if the fallout/damage from the health care bill would be minor. If the GOP believes that it will be a hugely detrimental problem, costing massive amounts of money, or even lives, I think they would want to still stand against it, on principle.

I'm not saying that it will turn out that way. I'm just saying, it's not always so easy as just turn around and walk away and let them hang themselves. They may believe it could be bad for everyone, not just the Democrats. They may be actually looking out for everyone. I know that's hard to accept to some on the left, but I suspect if we looked at some things that were done by the Bush's or Reagan, I'm sure there were Democrats against them on principle; where the idea of letting said thing happen so it would hurt the GOP wasn't even on the table. It was more important to stop the terrible action that was forthcoming.

[mhaze]

Incidentally, on the prospects for passing health care reform, I think it will still happen. That's because it will likely take a couple of weeks to certify the election, probably due to the question of absentee ballots, and in that time the Senate will have voted. And if that doesn't happen, there are other ways.

Paraphrasing this method of thinking and acting:

Yeah, Chumpie, you got it? You gotta git and you gotta pay up for this here health care.

We figgur it's real good for you to pay like we tells you too.

And you know, we got ways, you know.

We got different ways to get it to happen.

Yes, indeed. That's going to make a lot of friends and allies.

[applecorped]

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/01/after_obama_ral.php


According to Patches Kennedy it's not "Marcia's" fault that we're in a hole but she is the better choice to help Obama (who is working 36 hour days!) because they have a lot of digging to do!

When in a hole, keep digging.

[DJW]

So what you are saying is that I call you a homicidal mass murderer and you would have no problem?

No, that is not what I'm suggesting. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear enough. I have a problem with you calling people names without evidence. Someone calling you a socialist isn't evidence that they are stupid racists. Having flags that proclaim "Don't tread on me" does not make them stupid racists, nor does that Obama Joker picture (actually, I have no idea what that is supposed to symbolize). Calling me a homicidal maniac without evidence is not okay with me. Okay?

[Bikewer]

Not related to this specific race, but in general...Pundits are saying that numbers of voters are upset that the Democrats have not made everything sweetness and light in one year, and so they are now going to vote for Republican candidates....
Representatives of the very party that created the conditions that they are upset about.

Perhaps my son has a point about intelligence tests for voters....

[mhaze]

....They may believe it could be bad for everyone, not just the Democrats. They may be actually looking out for everyone. I know that's hard to accept to some on the left....

Any elected representative or senator that thinks it's okay to vote the party line and not read the bill should be voted out.

This makes it really easy for the Republicans, since they have complained about getting 1000 page bills at midnight with the vote being the next morning at 9 am.

You don't have to read the bill if there is no time to read it. You just vote no on principle.

Of course there's more to it than that, but that's an important part of it.

[theprestige]

So what you are saying is that I call you a homicidal mass murderer and you would have no problem?
It depends. Are you literally accusing me of homicide and mass murder? Are you suggesting that I might be prone to such activities in the future? If so, then I expect you to bring some evidence to support those claims, or else kindly shut up.

But if you're comparing me to a comic book villain for rhetorical purposes, all that I really care about is whether or not the comparison resonates, and whether your rhetoric is any good.

Incidentally, "comparing someone to the Joker is the same as accusing them of homicide and mass murder" is pretty much epic rhetorical fail.

[mortimer]

Intrade is now 64-38 Brown. Quite a turnaround in just a couple days.

[Brainster]

Not related to this specific race, but in general...Pundits are saying that numbers of voters are upset that the Democrats have not made everything sweetness and light in one year, and so they are now going to vote for Republican candidates....
Representatives of the very party that created the conditions that they are upset about.

Perhaps my son has a point about intelligence tests for voters....

How could anybody think that liberals are a bunch of elitist snobs?
:rolleyes:

[ProbeX]

ProbeX I'd say that analysis is only accurate if the fallout/damage from the health care bill would be minor. If the GOP believes that it will be a hugely detrimental problem, costing massive amounts of money, or even lives, I think they would want to still stand against it, on principle.

I'm not saying that it will turn out that way. I'm just saying, it's not always so easy as just turn around and walk away and let them hang themselves. They may believe it could be bad for everyone, not just the Democrats. They may be actually looking out for everyone. I know that's hard to accept to some on the left, but I suspect if we looked at some things that were done by the Bush's or Reagan, I'm sure there were Democrats against them on principle; where the idea of letting said thing happen so it would hurt the GOP wasn't even on the table. It was more important to stop the terrible action that was forthcoming.

You make a good point: not everyone in the GOP believes the bill would merely create a minor fallout. While there are nay-sayers who are merely party-line objectors, there are some who honestly believe this bill will somehow be majorly detrimental, although admittedly I'm not sure how. If single payer or even public option were still likely, then I could understand this attitude a little better. Single payer makes me a little nervous too, as a Moderate.

You're right: both sides of the aisle have their party-line objectors. And I find it pretty entertaining to watch Dems accusing Pubs of not being patriotic/ respecting our Dem president, while the Pubs cry about government intrusion, when a few short years ago each party acted just the opposite ;)

[ProbeX]

How could anybody think that liberals are a bunch of elitist snobs?
:rolleyes:

... except that people on the Right often say similarly ridiculous things about the Left (Pot meet kettle / Kettle meet pot). Gotta love party politics :rolleyes:

[Brainster]

... except that people on the Right often say similarly ridiculous things about the Left (Pot meet kettle / Kettle meet pot). Gotta love party politics :rolleyes:

I don't object to the partisanship, just the bit about how the voters are too dumb to be allowed to vote. That smacks of elitism, and you won't find any conservatives suggesting it.

[mortimer]

Not related to this specific race, but in general...Pundits are saying that numbers of voters are upset that the Democrats have not made everything sweetness and light in one year, and so they are now going to vote for Republican candidates....
Representatives of the very party that created the conditions that they are upset about.

Perhaps my son has a point about intelligence tests for voters....
One year? The Dems have been in control of Congress for 3 years.

[Brainster]

Intrade is now 64-38 Brown. Quite a turnaround in just a couple days.

72-28 now. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Martha!

[theprestige]

Not related to this specific race, but in general...Pundits are saying that numbers of voters are upset that the Democrats have not made everything sweetness and light in one year, and so they are now going to vote for Republican candidates....
Representatives of the very party that created the conditions that they are upset about.

Perhaps my son has a point about intelligence tests for voters....
It's funny, but back in July I didn't hear how long it would take to bring Hope and Change, when Obama was all set to get sweeping health care reform passed before August '09.

I didn't hear a lot about how much higher the unemployment rate was going to go, and for how long, back when Obama's policies were supposed to bring the unemployment rate down by the end of last year.

It's not that voters stupidly believed Obama would fix the world in one short year. It's that Obama stupidly set out, publically, to accomplish more than a year's worth of stuff in one short year. And then made a dog's breakfast of it.

[mortimer]

72-28 now. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Martha!
If I were a betting man, I'd probably take Coakley at those odds.

[Just thinking]

However, you're not (as you suggested) ... too wise, no doubt.

[mhaze]

Sheeeshh....what to do, what to do...

Me, I like to side with the underdog.....

[Puppycow]

72-28 now. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Martha!

Wow.

Even PPP, a democratic pollster shows a lead for Brown.
The Daily Kos poll is a tie.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_special_election-1144.html

I really wasn't paying much attention to this race because I thought it was a foregone conclusion. When I finally notice it looks like the dem is about to lose. What did she do? Was it the remark about Curt Schilling?

[MattusMaximus]

Paraphrasing this method of thinking and acting:

Yeah, Chumpie, you got it? You gotta git and you gotta pay up for this here health care.

We figgur it's real good for you to pay like we tells you too.

And you know, we got ways, you know.

We got different ways to get it to happen.

Yes, indeed. That's going to make a lot of friends and allies.

Remember the Minnesota Senate race, mhaze? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[MattusMaximus]

You make a good point: not everyone in the GOP believes the bill would merely create a minor fallout. While there are nay-sayers who are merely party-line objectors, there are some who honestly believe this bill will somehow be majorly detrimental, although admittedly I'm not sure how. If single payer or even public option were still likely, then I could understand this attitude a little better. Single payer makes me a little nervous too, as a Moderate.

You're right: both sides of the aisle have their party-line objectors. And I find it pretty entertaining to watch Dems accusing Pubs of not being patriotic/ respecting our Dem president, while the Pubs cry about government intrusion, when a few short years ago each party acted just the opposite ;)

I think hypocrisy is a requirement for politics :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

Wow.

Even PPP, a democratic pollster shows a lead for Brown.
The Daily Kos poll is a tie.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_special_election-1144.html

I really wasn't paying much attention to this race because I thought it was a foregone conclusion. When I finally notice it looks like the dem is about to lose. What did she do? Was it the remark about Curt Schilling?

It seems to me that she got sloppy, assumed that she would be a shoe-in for the Senate seat, and didn't go out to really work for it. Meanwhile, her opponent just busted his ass going all over the state with a populist message. He barnstormed the state, and it wasn't until some polls came out early last week that showed he was gaining on her that she clued in and started to campaign seriously. It seems as if he's had the momentum ever since then.

It'll all come down to turnout tomorrow. I can easily see this thing going the route of the MN Senate race last year - get ready for some more headaches on that front, folks.

I certainly hope that I'm wrong about this, because I'd really like to see the loser accept defeat gracefully, but then... ugh :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

72-28 now. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Martha!

Was she ever in? ;)

[MattusMaximus]

Not related to this specific race, but in general...Pundits are saying that numbers of voters are upset that the Democrats have not made everything sweetness and light in one year, and so they are now going to vote for Republican candidates....
Representatives of the very party that created the conditions that they are upset about.

Oh, teh irony!

Perhaps my son has a point about intelligence tests for voters....

Oh please, I have to second Brainster's comments. Talk like that only feeds the meme that liberals are "elitists". Knock it off, please.

People are pissed off about the state of things, and I can't blame them - yes it's true that fixing problems like the country has now will take time, and yes I think we're on the way to getting those problems fixed, but it's human nature to be impatient & anxious under these sort of conditions. And when things are like this the party in power is, like it or not, going to get the shaft. It happened to Bush and the GOP after Katrina and the Iraq War dragged on and on and on, and it's happening to the Dems now.

"Whose fault the mess is" hardly matters, as illogical as that sounds. People don't care about the blame game, they care about results and getting things fixed. Any political party in power that forgets that places itself in peril.

What this all shows is nothing inherently good or bad about Republicans or Democrats, though there are those partisans who will spin it one way or the other. All it really shows is that when you're in power, people expect things to get done, and if that doesn't happen... bye, bye.

If the Dems try to point at the GOP with the same message that you've written above, they're screwing themselves. What they need to do is buckle down and govern, take credit for what goes right and take blame for what goes wrong, because they are in charge.

Likewise, if the GOP fools themselves into thinking that these recent election results indicate that they're somehow the best party for fixing the country's problems, they're also screwing themselves. It's easy to bitch that the people in power aren't doing the job, but it's much harder to actually come up with workable solutions.

[novice skeptic]

It seems to me that she got sloppy, assumed that she would be a shoe-in for the Senate seat, and didn't go out to really work for it. Meanwhile, her opponent just busted his ass going all over the state with a populist message. He barnstormed the state, and it wasn't until some polls came out early last week that showed he was gaining on her that she clued in and started to campaign seriously. It seems as if he's had the momentum ever since then.

It'll all come down to turnout tomorrow. I can easily see this thing going the route of the MN Senate race last year - get ready for some more headaches on that front, folks.

I certainly hope that I'm wrong about this, because I'd really like to see the loser accept defeat gracefully, but then... ugh :rolleyes:

Pretty much it to a T. She refused to do interviews. He appeared on every radio station on the dial every day, including sport radio several times. He was on the top afternoon drive time talk station pretty much every day.

Also, he called for debates and her camp tried to get out of them. Their plan was: just don't do anything stupid and this is an easy win. She did agree to a couple of debates but wanted the 3rd libertarian party candidate (whose name is Kennedy) there too, thinking that he'd pull votes from Brown's right.

She came off as arrogant, an insider, machine politician. He came off as "new" (even though he's been in the state legislature awhile) and a regular guy.

In her defense, she really is no worse a candidate than the state has had for any number of offices that still get elected despite their crappiness. I think this was just a perfect storm for Brown. A not very good Dem candidate, the state changing the rules to rig the game for an interim senator (after rigging it the other way when a Repub governor was in charge), fear of Obama care, jitters about the economy, etc.

She ran a horrible campaign, but it would be a mistake for Dems to not learn other lessons if things go wrong for them tomorrow.

[MattusMaximus]

In her defense, she really is no worse a candidate than the state has had for any number of offices that still get elected despite their crappiness. I think this was just a perfect storm for Brown. A not very good Dem candidate, the state changing the rules to rig the game for an interim senator (after rigging it the other way when a Repub governor was in charge), fear of Obama care, jitters about the economy, etc.

Agreed, on that front I think the GOP got really lucky here. The thing is it seems they had the presence of mind to see the opportunity and go for it.

She ran a horrible campaign, but it would be a mistake for Dems to not learn other lessons if things go wrong for them tomorrow.

Exactly. And on that note I think it'd be a mistake for the GOP to necessarily make this out to be bigger than it really is. I mean, it's big in terms of the makeup of the Senate, but to start assuming that people are just going to be falling in love with the GOP now... did I mention hubris somewhere upthread? :)

[corplinx]

A rational person with a modicum of human decency, should just write in a vote for Obama or Ted Kennedy if they wish to vote but don't wish to vote for Brown.

Coakley tried to keep innocent people in prison for woo notions.

Btw, "Help Democratic GOTV in Massachusetts!" and the link is http://my.barackobama.com/CoakleyN2N ??? Skeptical Teacher?

[Puppycow]

If Brown is elected, I'm sure he'll be certified with the same alacrity that Al Franken was.

ETA: Whoever it is, it would normally take a while to certify the election anyway, right? Senators elected in early November take office in late January normally, so it takes a couple months anyway. The health care vote would presumably be over by then.

[Brainster]

Was she ever in? ;)

The moment she got the nomination. I would have to look to find out the last time Massachusetts sent a Republican to Washington; I know that all of their House of Representatives members are Democrats. It might go back as far as the 1970s; there was a black Republican senator named Brooke IIRC.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't object to the partisanship, just the bit about how the voters are too dumb to be allowed to vote. That smacks of elitism, and you won't find any conservatives suggesting it.

Mm, I'd say it is about even, given all the lectures I've been given about the Founders made a Republic and not a Democracy and that proportional representation or other reforms would lead to a "mobocracy".

[Bikewer]

Sorry, I couldn't find a "tongue-in-cheek" smiley for my comment about intelligence tests....

Although the democrats may have nominally been in control of Congress for three years, it was still Dubya in the driver's seat for two of those and I don't recall them having a veto-override majority....
I imagine that Obama was expecting perhaps just a little tiny bit of non-partisan activity rather than the general stonewalling (the party of "no") on the part of the Republicans.

[Brainster]

Keith Olbermann checks in with his usual sober, cautious analysis:

xlfGjGBrNKg

[AlBell]

Homophobic Nude Teabaggers on the March (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTNiYWEwZTYwY2IwOTkwZmExODBhYmJlZmYwN2VjZTA=x)
(short comment from Mark Steyn)

[mortimer]

Although the democrats may have nominally been in control of Congress for three years, it was still Dubya in the driver's seat for two of those and I don't recall them having a veto-override majority....
Bush's last three vetoes (all in 2008) were all overridden, so obviously the Democrat-controlled Congress had some veto-override ability.
I imagine that Obama was expecting perhaps just a little tiny bit of non-partisan activity rather than the general stonewalling (the party of "no") on the part of the Republicans.
Which of Obama's major legislation goals have been stopped by the Republicans? Stimulus and bailouts? Healthcare reform?

[MikeMangum]

Having flags that proclaim "Don't tread on me" does not make them stupid racists, nor does that Obama Joker picture (actually, I have no idea what that is supposed to symbolize).

The Obama/Joker picture was originally created by Firas Alkhateeb (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/obama-joker-artist.html).

"After Obama was elected, you had all of these people who basically saw him as the second coming of Christ," Alkhateeb said. "From my perspective, there wasn't much substance to him."

"I abstained from voting in November," he wrote in an e-mail. "Living in Illinois, my vote means close to nothing as there was no chance Obama would not win the state." If he had to choose a politician to support, Alkhateeb said, it would be Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

[hubbub2]

Jon Stewart's take...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-18-2010/mass-backwards

[Just thinking]

Keith Olbermann checks in with his usual sober, cautious analysis:

Early results show Brown with a good lead ... and if he pulls it off with a Coakley resignation this evening, I think I'll watch MSNBC just to see who has the longest face. (I wonder if anyone has the nerve to ask Chris if he feels another thrill up his leg.)

[Cicero]

Jon Stewart's take...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-18-2010/mass-backwards

Coakley campaign spells their state "Massachusettes." I wonder if Palin ever mispelled Alaska?

"Even before the first results were announced, administration officials were privately accusing Coakley of a poorly run campaign and playing down the notion that Obama or a toxic political landscape had much to do with the outcome.

Coakley’s supporters, in turn, blamed that very environment, saying her lead dropped significantly after the Senate passed health care reform shortly before Christmas and after the Christmas Day attempted airliner bombing that Obama himself said showed a failure of his administration."

http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/01/19/mass-voters-decide-close-senate-race-could-threaten-obamas-agenda-including-health-care-22025/

[applecorped]

For the first time, sniff, in my adult life, sniff, I am proud to be from Massachusetts.:bigclap

[applecorped]

Conceded!!!:pythonfoot:

[mortimer]

Yep, Associated Press has called it for Brown, Fox News is reporting that Coakley has conceded.

[Cicero]

Yep, Associated Press has called it for Brown, Fox News is reporting that Coakley has conceded.

Seeing how the Coakley campaign spelled Massachusetts, did Coakley spell it "conceited?"

[Whiplash]

How long before the cries of the American people having a temper tantrum and not being patient enough to wait for the Democrats to fix problems?

Who's gonna play the race card first? (Woops, I see Olberman already did that).

[Redtail]

So... What now?

[novice skeptic]

The moment she got the nomination. I would have to look to find out the last time Massachusetts sent a Republican to Washington; I know that all of their House of Representatives members are Democrats. It might go back as far as the 1970s; there was a black Republican senator named Brooke IIRC.

I believe Peter Blute was a GOP congressman in the 80s and perhaps into the 90s.

EDIT: Yup served in the 90s.

[Whiplash]

So... What now?


Well, even as a conservative, I have to say, I think that what happens is we continue to be strongly politically divided and keep ourselves mired in the muck rather than moving forward in any way.

[Cicero]

So... What now?

The DNC gets, you know, Caroline Kennedy to, you know, move to, you know, Massachusetts, to, you know, run for, you know, the seat, in, you know, another six years, you know.

[applecorped]

So... What now?


Cocktails.....and then :faint:

[dudalb]

If the Democratic Leaders in Mass had any decency, they would resign en mass after the way they messed this up. But I doubt that will happen. Cloakley will be the scapegoat.
Frankly, if the Dems could get their crap together , they would not need that 60th vote, BUt the Dems are badly divided..more so then many thought.
And the Lunatic wing of the GOP party will be empowered, and I don't know if the more moderate wing has the will to fight them.

[Prometheus]

The DNC gets, you know, Caroline Kennedy to, you know, move to, you know, Massachusetts, to, you know, run for, you know, the seat, in, you know, another six years, you know.

Just 3 years, actually, since that's what's left of the term, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if they're dumb enough to try it.

[Redtail]

Well, even as a conservative, I have to say, I think that what happens is we continue to be strongly politically divided and keep ourselves mired in the muck rather than moving forward in any way.
Yeah... that's what I was thinking...


you know well The DNC gets, , Caroline Kennedy to, you know well, move to, you know well Massachusetts, to, you know well run for, you know well, the seat, in, you know well, another six years, you know well.

:eek: ZOMBIE REAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dudalb]

So... What now?

WHo knows?
Is this a turning point or just a local rebellion by voters turned off by a arrogant Party leadership in Mass?

But I would like to hear from all those who just a year ago were dancing on the GOP's grave after the Dem win in 2008.

[Prometheus]

If the Democratic Leaders in Mass had any decency, they would resign en mass after the way they messed this up. But I doubt that will happen. Cloakley will be the scapegoat.
Frankly, if the Dems could get their crap together , they would not need that 60th vote, BUt the Dems are badly divided..more so then many thought.
And the Lunatic wing of the GOP party will be empowered, and I don't know if the more moderate wing has the will to fight them.

Coakley's attack ads notwithstanding, Brown actually is pretty moderate most of the time. This might just be the moderate repubs chance to take their party back from the far right.

[dudalb]

Well, even as a conservative, I have to say, I think that what happens is we continue to be strongly politically divided and keep ourselves mired in the muck rather than moving forward in any way.

As goes California, so goes the nation, I am afraid.

[Travis]

As a liberal I have to admit that the more I saw of the lady the less I liked her. I had the same issue with Kerry back in 04. The Dems really need to do a better job in vetting their candidates when so much (getting health care to people who don't have it) is on the line.

[dudalb]

Coakley's attack ads notwithstanding, Brown actually is pretty moderate most of the time. This might just be the moderate repubs chance to take their party back from the far right.

I would like to thing so, but the Teabaggers will try to milk this for all it is worth.

[Cicero]

Yeah... that's what I was thinking...




:eek: ZOMBIE REAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YF_pN8pWvg

[dudalb]

As a liberal I have to admit that the more I saw of the lady the less I liked her. I had the same issue with Kerry back in 04. The Dems really need to do a better job in vetting their candidates when so much (getting health care to people who don't have it) is on the line.

Now they have Hobson's choice: Try to pass a watered down measure in a hurry, or go for the Senate Bill by using Reconciliation..which is a WOM in politics. It gives the GOP an issue of Health Care being forced down people's throats by a shady parliamentary maneuver.

[Redtail]

If the Democratic Leaders in Mass had any decency, they would resign en mass after the way they messed this up. But I doubt that will happen. Cloakley will be the scapegoat.
Frankly, if the Dems could get their crap together , they would not need that 60th vote, BUt the Dems are badly divided..more so then many thought.
And the Lunatic wing of the GOP party will be empowered, and I don't know if the more moderate wing has the will to fight them.

I think they do. Whenever we get together my republican friends agree that now they know how my democrat friends felt during the Bush years. It's not that the wingnuts are the majority it just that they are so f'n loud.

[Prometheus]

I would like to thing so, but the Teabaggers will try to milk this for all it is worth.

They sure will. It's largely up to how astute Brown turns out to be with the big pile of political capital that he just earned himself, and whether he cares to spend it changing the party's dynamics or on other goals.

Also, as to those who were 'dancing on the GOP's grave,' the Dems have always been this badly divided. It took a Perfect Storm of Bush's Mind-boggling incompetence, Obama's charisma, and host of other factors to bring 'em together at all in 2008.

[Redtail]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YF_pN8pWvg

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyoooooooooooowwwwwwww wwwwww....

[Drudgewire]

Now the real question is whether the Jets can continue the momentum they started upset week with through Sunday.

[applecorped]

Now the real question is whether the Jets can continue the momentum they started upset week with through Sunday.

No, they're tea-baggers. (Lipton, I hear.)

[Whiplash]

Could Brett Favre save the Democrats?

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

I think I'll watch MSNBC just to see who has the longest face. (I wonder if anyone has the nerve to ask Chris if he feels another thrill up his leg.)

CHRIS MATTHEWS (One Year Ago, Today): A thrill running up his leg.
CHRIS MATTHEWS (Today): A warm, yellow stream running back down it again. :D

[applecorped]

Chris Mathews is already calling for reconciliation.

[Just thinking]

Early results show Brown with a good lead ... and if he pulls it off with a Coakley resignation this evening, I think I'll watch MSNBC just to see who has the longest face. (I wonder if anyone has the nerve to ask Chris if he feels another thrill up his leg.)

OK ... I know I'm replying to my own post, but I just tuned into MSNBC, and there was Chris, next to RM, and I swear he looked like a warmed over corpse.

[Cicero]

Could Brett Favre save the Democrats?

He's too decisive for them.

[dudalb]

Chris Mathews is already calling for reconciliation.

The real problem is the Senate is being ran by a set of archaic rules, which neither side really wants to change.

[applecorped]

This was worth it if just for Olbermann's response on msnbc.

[Just thinking]

And now Keith Overblown is asking anyone to disprove his insane characterization of Brown (in his earlier rant). Isn't that the opposite of what making such extreme statements is all about? ... isn't the claimant suppose to provide the proof?

He is literally on meltdown.

[Cicero]

OK ... I know I'm replying to my own post, but I just tuned into MSNBC, and there was Chris, next to RM, and I swear he looked like a warmed over corpse.

Brown hasn't been the victor for 10 minutes and the asinine K.O. is already hurling every pejorative he can think of at the guy.

[MattusMaximus]

Allow me to be the first (liberal/Democrat/etc) on the thread to extend congratulations to Scott Brown and the GOP for pulling off a win in MA. More than a week ago I would've said (I think I did at some point :o ) that you were crazy to suggest such a thing. Well fought...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/77474823c4a54b00a.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12117)

He campaigned long & hard, and the people of Massachusetts have spoken. This will certainly make things much more interesting for the rest of 2010. I hope that this will, how can I put it, force some willingness on the part of both parties to work in a more bipartisan manner (one can hope).

Now let's move forward.

[Cicero]

And now Keith Overblown is asking anyone to disprove his insane characterization of Brown (in his earlier rant). Isn't that the opposite of what making such extreme statements is all about? ... isn't the claimant suppose to provide the proof?
He is literally on meltdown.

Then it wouldn't be "Countdown."

[MattusMaximus]

Then it wouldn't be "Countdown."

Zing! ;)

[Cicero]

Allow me to be the first (liberal/Democrat/etc) on the thread to extend congratulations to Scott Brown and the GOP for pulling off a win in MA. More than a week ago I would've said (I think I did at some point :o ) that you were crazy to suggest such a thing. Well fought...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/77474823c4a54b00a.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12117)

He campaigned long & hard, and the people of Massachusetts have spoken. This will certainly make things much more interesting for the rest of 2010. I hope that this will, how can I put it, force some willingness on the part of both parties to work in a more bipartisan manner (one can hope).

Now let's move forward.

That is Mattus-Magnanimous of you. Yes, let's move forward.... but first, let's savor this just a while longer......

[MattusMaximus]

Could Brett Favre save the Democrats?

Chicago Democrats will not allow Favre anywhere near them, even if they were ready to fall off a cliff - sorry ;)

[MattusMaximus]

That is Mattus-Magnanimous of you.

Why thank you.

Yes, let's move forward.... but first, let's savor this just a while longer......

By all means, Cicero. You guys & gals have more than earned it. As I said, it was a well fought contest. I am impressed.

Congrats once again. Don't party too hard :)

Celebrate now, but by next week when Obama is delivering the SOU address, let's hope that both parties are more concerned about seriously rolling up their sleeves and working to help fix things.

Of course, I could be fantasizing - it is, after all, an election year :rolleyes:

[rwguinn]

Someday, maybe folks will figure out that this ain't a football game.
Republicans are actually people with valid concerns. Democrats are actually people with valid concerns. Independents, greens, tea-partiers--all people with valid concerns.
Just because your side wins an election does NOT mean you get to ignore the other side. You actually need to listen, not gloat. Lead, not continue campaigning. Follow through, not promise.
Oh, wait. Politics. Winning is the ONLY thing.

[Redtail]

Chicago Democrats will not allow Favre anywhere near them, even if they were ready to fall off a cliff - sorry ;)

Unless he wins the Super Bowl with the Vikings and then decides to stick another dagger in Green Bay's heart.

[MattusMaximus]

Unless he wins the Super Bowl with the Vikings and then decides to stick another dagger in Green Bay's heart.

At which point we will love him :D

[Cicero]

Someday, maybe folks will figure out that this ain't a football game.
Republicans are actually people with valid concerns. Democrats are actually people with valid concerns. Independents, greens, tea-partiers--all people with valid concerns.
Just because your side wins an election does NOT mean you get to ignore the other side. You actually need to listen, not gloat. Lead, not continue campaigning. Follow through, not promise.
Oh, wait. Politics. Winning is the ONLY thing.

Sure. But this Massachusetts Senate seat was held by a Kennedy, never mind just any Democrat, for 57 years. Gloating over this incredible result isn't going to change politics for better or worse.

[mortimer]

Olbermann is having a serious and total meltdown. I hope MSNBC has medical and psychological teams at the ready.

[Whiplash]

This was worth it if just for Olbermann's response on msnbc.


I just flipped him on to see what he was on about, and caught him making some statement about it being 2,500 some odd days (or something) since the previous President proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq.

Good Lord.. he's still on about that? Wow.

[MattusMaximus]

Olbermann is having a serious and total meltdown. I hope MSNBC has medical and psychological teams at the ready.

Oh good grief, K.O. and all of my Dem/liberal brethren should just take a damn chill pill. It's not the end of the frakkin' world, it is a political setback out of which could potentially come better things. But you cannot make lemonade out of lemons if you're too damned busy crying in your beer to look at the bright side of things & potential opportunities.

Let's put this into a bit of perspective... one year ago, the Dems had only 58 seats in the Senate. It wasn't until after Specter switched parties and a long & grueling contest in Minnesota gave the election to Franken that the Dems hit the 60th seat in the Senate last summer. Frankly, I'm amazed that we even got to 60 in the first place. I'm a bit bummed that we lost seat #60, but I'm not going to run screaming for the hills over it; the best thing to do is learn from this and move forward.

The Dems still have 59 seats, and if they play their cards right and stop freaking the hell out, they will still control both houses of Congress next November (albiet with losses).

Bottom line: if you defeat yourself in your own mind first, your opponent doesn't have to do much of anything to beat you. Duh :rolleyes:

[NobleXenon54]

I find it kind of odd that they elected a homophobe who is against any and all gay rights in a state that has same-sex marriage and various anti-discrimination laws. Then again this is the same state that elected Mitt Romney for Governor, so this is actually hilarious.

[Cicero]

Olbermann is having a serious and total meltdown. I hope MSNBC has medical and psychological teams at the ready.

Not to worry. Maddow is standing by to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.

[Cicero]

I find it kind of odd that they elected a homophobe who is against any and all gay rights in a state that has same-sex marriage and various anti-discrimination laws. Then again this is the same state that elected Mitt Romney for Governor, so this is actually hilarious.

You and K.O. have a lot in common.

[MattusMaximus]

Not to worry. Maddow is standing by to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.

That could be... sexy? She's kind of cute.

Full disclosure: I have a kind of forbidden liberal lust for Ann Coulter as well :o

[NobleXenon54]

You and K.O. have a lot in common.

Who's K.O.?

Anyways, now that the Democrats received their first blow, what next? Bipartisanship? [please]

[MattusMaximus]

Who's K.O.?

Keith Olbermann, the liberal equivalent, imo, of Bill O'Reilly. Kind of a blowhard.

Anyways, now that the Democrats received their first blow, what next? Bipartisanship? [please]

One can only hope :rolleyes:

[ZenFountain]

Someday, maybe folks will figure out that this ain't a football game.
Republicans are actually people with valid concerns. Democrats are actually people with valid concerns. Independents, greens, tea-partiers--all people with valid concerns.
Just because your side wins an election does NOT mean you get to ignore the other side. You actually need to listen, not gloat. Lead, not continue campaigning. Follow through, not promise.
Oh, wait. Politics. Winning is the ONLY thing.

Very well put :)

What is the angle here for Republicans in the long term? In the short term priority one is killing health care reform and two is recovering seats in the midterm, but long term they are not running on fixing anything. In 2012 when we still have terrible health care that cost more and provides less, nothing done to improve banking regulation and nothing done about immigration reform, are voters really going to be thankful for that?

It will be most interesting to see if there's hope for bipartisanship on anything besides war spending.

[MattusMaximus]

Very well put :)

What is the angle here for Republicans in the long term? In the short term priority one is killing health care reform and two is recovering seats in the midterm, but long term they are not running on fixing anything. In 2012 when we still have terrible health care that cost more and provides less, nothing done to improve banking regulation and nothing done about immigration reform, are voters really going to be thankful for that?

It will be most interesting to see if there's hope for bipartisanship on anything besides war spending.

Immigration reform is going to be a huge long term problem for the GOP. They cannot continue to cater to the rampant anti-immigration base and hold out any hope of also appealing to the ever growing Hispanic/Latino demographic in the country.

[NobleXenon54]

Keith Olbermann, the liberal equivalent, imo, of Bill O'Reilly. Kind of a blowhard.



One can only hope :rolleyes:

The Democrats pretty much burned their bridges, so I have little hope. 60 seat majority with control of the house, and they still couldn't get anything done, lol.

[MattusMaximus]

The Democrats pretty much burned their bridges, so I have little hope. 60 seat majority with control of the house, and they still couldn't get anything done, lol.

Pretty strong word there. They've gotten many things done, just not some of the really big things they wanted, like HCR... yet ;)

[NobleXenon54]

Pretty strong word there. They've gotten many things done, just not some of the really big things they wanted, like HCR... yet ;)

That's what I meant to say. Thanks.

[Just thinking]

That could be... sexy? She's kind of cute.

Full disclosure: I have a kind of forbidden liberal lust for Ann Coulter as well :o

Ann?

What of Mary Katharine Ham?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wiBKz1Cxt4U/SDiCsDkCDCI/AAAAAAAAAG8/iJFEb7vmOJs/s320/MaryKatharineHam.jpg

[Redtail]

A lot of times here in politics we get caught up in the left wing/right wing gotcha type comments, but lest we forget, some people are just batpoo crazy.

In this thread they hope for a Brown win, cheer when he does, and then start talk of how nothing has changed and exposing him as an NWO/illuminatti/mason/WTF ever.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=156054.0

[mortimer]

Not to worry. Maddow is standing by to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.
Maddow doesn't swing that way...

[Prometheus]

Massachusetts has not been the Liberal bastion it's characterized as in national politics for quite a long time. Maybe the length of Kennedy's tenure had something to do with that reputation, but people outside of Mass don't realize we really just kept him around because he worked for free and was fairly predictable. :rolleyes:

I'm somewhat ambivalent about this result because I think it may turn out to be good for Massachusetts and bad for the nation, at least in the short term. For a long time, MA hasn't really been considered "in play" in national circles, and has been marginalized because of the assumption that we'd always be strongly Democrat. Brown's victory will give MA a good deal more sway on the national stage. Who knows--maybe it'll even allow us to export Gay Marriage to the rest of you.... ;)

[Brainster]

Sure. But this Massachusetts Senate seat was held by a Kennedy, never mind just any Democrat, for 57 years. Gloating over this incredible result isn't going to change politics for better or worse.

To be insanely pedantic about it, there was an interregnum of about 2 years between JFK and Teddy, during which Ben Smith warmed the Senate seat until Ted reached age 30.

[Skeptic]

I find it kind of odd that they elected a homophobe who is against any and all gay rights in a state that has same-sex marriage

Whether Brown is a "homophobe" or not (the word means about as much as "racist" -- "he disagrees with me on something"), his opposition to gay marriage is the same as that as most citizens of Massachusetts.

[The Painter]

So happy.

[ponderingturtle]

Immigration reform is going to be a huge long term problem for the GOP. They cannot continue to cater to the rampant anti-immigration base and hold out any hope of also appealing to the ever growing Hispanic/Latino demographic in the country.

It is actualy a huge problem for both parties. Because it splits their power bases, sets unions against liberals, conseratives against big business.

So there really is not a rebublican and democratic position on it.

[Travis]

Maybe this will wake up the Democratic Leadership and we'll have some substance in November. Hmmm..... A galvanized Democratic base against the TeaBagger inflamed GOP. I'm ordering my popcorn early.

[Random]

Whether Brown is a "homophobe" or not (the word means about as much as "racist" -- "he disagrees with me on something"), his opposition to gay marriage is the same as that as most citizens of Massachusetts.

Last poll I saw on the subject was 44 percent against gay marriage, 43 percent in favor of gay marriage, the rest undecided. That is not "most" citizens of Massachusetts, and as predicted, opposition to gay marriage is declining steadily.

[The Painter]

It is actualy a huge problem for both parties.

No problem here. So happy. Obama, Pelosi, Reed mandate defeated.


There was a earthquake in Massachusetts. It was Ted Kennedy rolling over in his grave.:D

[Darth Rotor]

But if the GOP is successful at blocking the bill at this time, the public will likely resent nothing being done, over whatever minimal changes the bill would have affected. They will blame the GOP, believing the GOP thinks the status quo re: healthcare is acceptable, which could present a real problem for the GOP in the next election.

Agreed. The GOP would be fools to drink any coffe with added hubris sweetner from the Brown Senatorial victory. Given what they have done since the 2004 election, this is precisely what they will do.

I see the GOP getting a second punch to the face in 2010 if they learn the wrong lesson from "beating a less than energized candidate by the arrival of a bunch of 'throw the bums out' voters in MA."

"Throw the Bums Out" applies to both parties when the electroate gets irritated. But the GOP didn't heed that lesson in 2006, nor in 2008. What makes anyone think they will learn by 2010?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

As goes California, so goes the nation, I am afraid.

What, we are all about to get twenty inches of rain? :eek:

[Darth Rotor]

Someday, maybe folks will figure out that this ain't a football game.
Republicans are actually people with valid concerns. Democrats are actually people with valid concerns. Independents, greens, tea-partiers--all people with valid concerns.
Just because your side wins an election does NOT mean you get to ignore the other side. You actually need to listen, not gloat. Lead, not continue campaigning. Follow through, not promise.
Oh, wait. Politics. Winning is the ONLY thing.
Nice post.

I wish to remind the GOP that they have on their side of the aisle ... 41 Senators. All they can be for the moment is spoilers.

This is no mandate. It's a spike, a ripple, but I must admit, I never thought I'd see the day a Republican took a Senate seat in MA. Quite the surprise.

DR

[shuize]

Hitler learns of the loss of Massachusetts. Funny:

c4aQCiRjvZY&feature

"Rush Limbaugh swore a pact with the Devil ... True story." Heh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY&feature=player_embedded#

[mhaze]

Agreed. The GOP would be fools to drink any coffe with added hubris sweetner from the Brown Senatorial victory. Given what they have done since the 2004 election, this is precisely what they will do.

I see the GOP getting a second punch to the face in 2010 if they learn the wrong lesson from "beating a less than energized candidate by the arrival of a bunch of 'throw the bums out' voters in MA."

"Throw the Bums Out" applies to both parties when the electroate gets irritated. But the GOP didn't heed that lesson in 2006, nor in 2008. What makes anyone think they will learn by 2010?

DRThe story here is about the wishes of the people, not about party A or B.

This happens to be a giant distinction.

Well, apparently...

[Darth Rotor]

The story here is about the wishes of the people, not about party A or B. This happens to be a giant distinction.

Political parties are made up of people, eh? ;) "The people" are fickle, and prone to influence by various parties, political and otherwise.

However, to go along with your point, the "wishes of the people" is often seen in voter turnout, which actually represents "the wishes of the people who care enough to vote" which for this election was ... what percent of the electorate? :confused: Numbers will probably be updated later, but here's an initial slice. Source is a C & P from a wiki article of whatever merit ...

Party|Candidate|Votes|%
Republican|Scott Brown|1,168,107 |51.9%
Democratic |Martha Coakley |1,058,682 | 47.1%
Independent | Joseph L. Kennedy | 22,237 | 1.0
|Total votes | 2,249,026 | 100%
According to the state of MA stats, in 2004 there were 4,098,634 registered voters.
State Population is estimated at 6,497,967 in2009. (Call it 6,500,000 in round figures)

Looks like voter turnout is pretty decent, if you think 22/40, or 55% is a good voter turnout. I'd be more impressed with a larger quorum, like 2/3 or greater. If 55% of the voters show up, and just over half vote for the winner, then about 28-30% of the people chose the winner. The wishes of the people who care enough to vote it is. :) Heck, if you bat .300, the Sox are interested in signing you, right? ;) But NFL coaches with winning percentages of .300 don't hold their jobs long.

Fun with numbers.

DR

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The people have spoken. In what was to be the Year of Open Government, we got the most partisan, secretive, pork-bellied, smoke-filled annoyance of a health care bill one could imagine. That pissed off all the independents who threw their support behind Obama. So they voted for the Republican.

There will be no change, of course, but that doesn't help Martha Coakley.

~~ Paul

[Tricky]

...But NFL coaches with winning percentages of .300 don't hold their jobs long.
I would think not. That means they only win 3 out of every thousand games.:p

[shemp]

Good job, Martha Chokely.

[Shalamar]

Ahh.. Politics, and dividing lines as usual.

For the Democrats, this means a setback, and probably an unfortunate loss of the Healthcare bill. But I wouldn't hold off on it yet.

For the Republicans, this means a universal mandate against the evil godless liberals, Obama should immediately be removed from office, and all democrats replaced with republicans brin ging in the great one party rule that this country deserves.

And when the republicans lose seats in a few years, the above will be reversed. Country as usual, nothing gets done, and the people suffer for it.

All glory to the winners.

hip hip hooray

[Beerina]

The wishes of the people who care enough to vote it is. :) Heck, if you bat .300, the Sox are interested in signing you, right? ;) But NFL coaches with winning percentages of .300 don't hold their jobs long.

Regardless of how good .300 is in absolute terms, it's better than .250. :)

[Cicero]

For the Republicans, this means a universal mandate against the evil godless liberals, Obama should immediately be removed from office, and all democrats replaced with republicans brin ging in the great one party rule that this country deserves.


More like brainless than godless. Is it too much to ask the candidate for a U.S. Senate seat to correctly spell their state's name? Why should POTUS Obama be removed from office? As soon as he throws his weight behind a Democrat candidate, they are sure to lose.

Governor Jon Corzine
R. Creigh Deeds Democratic nominee for governor of Virginia
Martha Coakley

and even..

The Olympics

[Cleon]

How long before the cries of the American people having a temper tantrum and not being patient enough to wait for the Democrats to fix problems?

Who's gonna play the race card first? (Woops, I see Olberman already did that).

Well, even as a conservative, I have to say, I think that what happens is we continue to be strongly politically divided and keep ourselves mired in the muck rather than moving forward in any way.

You certainly seem to be doing your part.

[Cleon]

Is it too much to ask the candidate for a U.S. Senate seat to correctly spell their state's name?

Look, Coakley's an idiot and I don't know what the Democrats were thinking by running her in the first place.

But you don't really think that Coakley personally misspelled Massachusetts, do you? That's a bit of a stretch. I really, really doubt that she was editing the commercials herself.

[Cicero]

Look, Coakley's an idiot and I don't know what the Democrats were thinking by running her in the first place.

But you don't really think that Coakley personally misspelled Massachusetts, do you? That's a bit of a stretch. I really, really doubt that she was editing the commercials herself.

Are you saying that she never saw the ad before it went out over the airwaves? Surely she approved the ad. The damn thing about political ads is that the candidate is ultimately responsible for the content.

[Cicero]

"Webb: Stop Senate votes until Brown is seated"

"Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) said the upper chamber shouldn't move forward with healthcare or any other bills until Brown is sworn in."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/76961-webb-no-senate-votes-until-brown-is-seated

[MattusMaximus]

Agreed. The GOP would be fools to drink any coffe with added hubris sweetner from the Brown Senatorial victory. Given what they have done since the 2004 election, this is precisely what they will do.

This is my concern as well. I am worried that many power-players in the GOP will see this as a green light to filibuster anything and everything put forth by Obama and the Dems. Blatant obstructionism right now would be very very bad for the country.

I see the GOP getting a second punch to the face in 2010 if they learn the wrong lesson from "beating a less than energized candidate by the arrival of a bunch of 'throw the bums out' voters in MA."

"Throw the Bums Out" applies to both parties when the electroate gets irritated. But the GOP didn't heed that lesson in 2006, nor in 2008. What makes anyone think they will learn by 2010?

DR

I hope they learn, but as I said I'm afraid the newly energized conservative wing will simply want to fight for the sake of fighting as opposed to getting problems solved.

I hope I'm wrong.

[AvalonXQ]

And when the republicans lose seats in a few years, the above will be reversed. Country as usual, nothing gets done, and the people suffer for it.

On the contrary; "nothing gets done" is quite the benefit to the people. We've seen what happens when those idiots actually take action.
Whoever thought that putting 535 self-aggrandizing sycophantic slimy ideologues in one place would result in beneficial, well-written laws has spent too much time admiring the university system.

[MattusMaximus]

"Webb: Stop Senate votes until Brown is seated"

"Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) said the upper chamber shouldn't move forward with healthcare or any other bills until Brown is sworn in."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/76961-webb-no-senate-votes-until-brown-is-seated

Agreed.

[Cleon]

Are you saying that she never saw the ad before it went out over the airwaves?

Once again, the phrase "are you saying" is a clear indication that one hell of a strawman is coming.

Surely she approved the ad. The damn thing about political ads is that the candidate is ultimately responsible for the content.

Likely, she did see it, and approved it. That doesn't mean she noticed the misspelling; all indications seem to be that she considered paying attention to be beneath her.

However, you said:


Is it too much to ask the candidate for a U.S. Senate seat to correctly spell their state's name?

Which strongly suggests that you think she personally was the one who misspelled the word, rather than whoever put the commercial together. If you don't think that, I'm happy to hear it.

[Cicero]

I would like to thing so, but the Teabaggers will try to milk this for all it is worth.

Since it was the Independents that insured Brown's victory, they will be the ones doing the milking, not the TPP.

[Cicero]

Once again, the phrase "are you saying" is a clear indication that one hell of a strawman is coming.



Likely, she did see it, and approved it. That doesn't mean she noticed the misspelling; all indications seem to be that she considered paying attention to be beneath her.

However, you said:



Which strongly suggests that you think she personally was the one who misspelled the word, rather than whoever put the commercial together. If you don't think that, I'm happy to hear it.

The fact that Coakley, the final arbiter/editor of what goes in the ad, didn't catch the error, saying that she can't spell the name of her state is a legitimate criticism. Should she admit that she never paid any attention to her own ads, then I will retract the criticism that she indeed screwed the pouch on the spelling.

[MattusMaximus]

Since it was the Independents that insured Brown's victory, they will be the ones doing the milking, not the TPP.

Unfortunately, that probably won't stop the TP-types from trying to milk it. I think that was the point.

[Cleon]

The fact that Coakley, the final arbiter/editor of what goes in the ad, didn't catch the error, saying that she can't spell the name of her state is a legitimate criticism. Should she admit that she never paid any attention to her own ads, then I will retract the criticism that she indeed screwed the pouch on the spelling.

I can only describe this attitude as irrationally partisan.

[Cicero]

I can only describe this attitude as irrationally partisan.

After admitting that:

Look, Coakley's an idiot...

Your attitude is just plain bizarre.

[Cleon]

After admitting that:

Your attitude is just plain bizarre.

Not at all, it makes perfect sense to most people. It is philosophically possible to dislike someone's candidacy without having to go looking for "gotchas."

Coakley is an idiot. She showed open contempt towards her constituency and acted as though the Senate seat was hers as mandated by God. However, it's rather obvious to me that the screen text was put in there by a low-level campaign worker, not by her personally, so it's really not good evidence that she doesn't know how to spell the name of her state. To me, the assumption that she noticed the text and said nothing is without evidence; therefore, that assumption is nothing more than digging for a "gotcha."

[JoeTheJuggler]

The people have spoken. In what was to be the Year of Open Government, we got the most partisan, secretive, pork-bellied, smoke-filled annoyance of a health care bill one could imagine.

Really? You think this healthcare bill has been more "secretive, pork-bellied" and "smoke-filled" than say the Medicare Reform bill of 2003 or (to shift to non-health large legislation) the Energy Bill of 2005? I don't recall being able to read the text of those bills on line or watching much (if any) of the debate in committee and on the floors of the chambers of Congress.

[Brainster]

This is my concern as well. I am worried that many power-players in the GOP will see this as a green light to filibuster anything and everything put forth by Obama and the Dems. Blatant obstructionism right now would be very very bad for the country.

I hope they learn, but as I said I'm afraid the newly energized conservative wing will simply want to fight for the sake of fighting as opposed to getting problems solved.

I hope I'm wrong.

Both sides will "learn" the lesson they want from this race; not just the Republicans. See the people posting here and elsewhere that the Democrats should just ram everything through and not attempt to reach any compromise with the Republicans.

It's fair to point out that Coakley ran a bad race, and Brown ran a good one, but that would have meant nothing in an ordinary year.

[theprestige]

The fact that Coakley, the final arbiter/editor of what goes in the ad, didn't catch the error, saying that she can't spell the name of her state is a legitimate criticism. Should she admit that she never paid any attention to her own ads, then I will retract the criticism that she indeed screwed the pouch on the spelling.
I dunno... If I were running for a US Senate seat, I'd probably prefer to fill my schedule with things only I, as the candidate, could properly do. Certain fundraising appearances. Recording TV and Radio spots. Calling those people who need my personal touch, before they'll support my campaign. Etc.

I'd definitely participate in crafting the overall message of the campaign ads, but I would absolutely, 100% delegate final copy-editing and proof-reading to somebody who has plenty of time to do that, while I'm busy doing all the other things they can't possibly do for me.

[ZenFountain]

The actual ramifications of 41 Senate Republicans seems to be far overblown. Ben Nelson is more conservative than Snowe and Collins, Lieberman is way off the party reservation and let's be frank, Bird could die any day now and has to be wheeled in for any important votes. The so called Democratic super-majority was a paper tiger, anything but the socialist steamroller Republicans made it out to be.

Republicans can celebrate killing the health care reform bill as is, milk that for whatever it's worth and the Senate will go back to working the way is always has, deal making by centrist. Pieces of the health care bill will be passed (the exchanges and subsidies) and Obama will easily get his war funding from Republicans. That's a tough pill to swallow, but with Republicans high on this victory and Democrats humbled, the political atmosphere now seems better for bipartisanship on major legislation. Before there was no incentive for Republicans to cooperate on anything.

/puts down the crystal ball

[Cicero]

I dunno... If I were running for a US Senate seat, I'd probably prefer to fill my schedule with things only I, as the candidate, could properly do. Certain fundraising appearances. Recording TV and Radio spots. Calling those people who need my personal touch, before they'll support my campaign. Etc.

I imagine that you would have had greater success than Coakley since she wasn't spending her time doing these things either. Of course, only you, the candidate, is going to take the rap for misspelling your state's name in a commercial. Maybe you should have spent the 10 minutes it would take to view the commercial before it went out over the airwaves. Your choice.

I'd definitely participate in crafting the overall message of the campaign ads, but I would absolutely, 100% delegate final copy-editing and proof-reading to somebody who has plenty of time to do that, while I'm busy doing all the other things they can't possibly do for me.

You mean like shaking hands at Fenway Park?

"Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.

“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that."

[carlitos]

The ironic thing is that the passing of Senator Kennedy was initially going to boost the chances of passing health care. I don't remember who - maybe Harry Reid or Chris Dodd - was all "Let's win this for Teddy!" at one point. Now, it appears that his passing will minimize the chances that the reform will pass as advertised.

[mhaze]

Political parties are made up of people, eh? ;) "The people" are fickle, and prone to influence by various parties, political and otherwise.

However, to go along with your point, the "wishes of the people" is often seen in voter turnout, which actually represents "the wishes of the people who care enough to vote" which for this election was ... what percent of the electorate? :confused: Numbers will probably be updated later, but here's an initial slice. Source is a C & P from a wiki article of whatever merit ...

Party|Candidate|Votes|%
Republican|Scott Brown|1,168,107 |51.9%
Democratic |Martha Coakley |1,058,682 | 47.1%
Independent | Joseph L. Kennedy | 22,237 | 1.0
|Total votes | 2,249,026 | 100% According to the state of MA stats, in 2004 there were 4,098,634 registered voters.
State Population is estimated at 6,497,967 in2009. (Call it 6,500,000 in round figures)

Looks like voter turnout is pretty decent, if you think 22/40, or 55% is a good voter turnout. DR

Right. But don't forget that the Repubs had written this race off and did not support Brown. I'm not really sure where the support came from and the time sequence of it. Some kind of nationwide ground swell of support or something, then the Repub party sort of grudgingly got into the play.

I got an email asking for contributions weekend before last....it said that they were trying to create a "million dollar money bomb" on Monday. Sent them a bit.

Later that week heard that Brown had done more than $1M each day last week. Now that's a shocker.

It was not the Republican party......

And now that the votes are in, I'm not certain, given that sequence of events, that it can be counted as a win for the republican party.

Seems more like a win for what this guy said he would do if elected.

He said he'd put the 41st wooden stake in the heart of the healthcare creature that keeps trying to get out of it's coffin.

[AvalonXQ]

The ironic thing is that the passing of Senator Kennedy was initially going to boost the chances of passing health care. I don't remember who - maybe Harry Reid or Chris Dodd - was all "Let's win this for Teddy!" at one point. Now, it appears that his passing will minimize the chances that the reform will pass as advertised.

Part of that has to be due to the boneheaded move of admonishing Brown for wanting to do this with "Ted Kennedy's seat". Talk about a powerful soundbite.

[Drysdale]

Both sides will "learn" the lesson they want from this race; not just the Republicans. See the people posting here and elsewhere that the Democrats should just ram everything through and not attempt to reach any compromise with the Republicans.

It's fair to point out that Coakley ran a bad race, and Brown ran a good one, but that would have meant nothing in an ordinary year.

I agree here. I think 3 years ago given the exact same parameters in Mass. Coakley wins easily.

Unlike some democrat media types who think this is a fluke and Coakley was just incompetent it looks like a much larger message to me.

I'm a long way from Mass. but from the coverage I did see the biggest issue was how they would vote for the health bill. It is apparent(with the possible exception of Calf.) that if Mass the bluest state in the union votes a Republican into Kennedy's former seat that people dont want this particular bill to pass. I know many are invested in it on this board(including many non US posters who I dont understand why they are so interested in US politics anyway) but from what we know it stinks. Even many sources from the left are basically saying just get it through and we can change it later which is indicative of it's true nature. I think the Dems better wise up and see the trees in the forest.

At least give the impression you are investing some time and effort into the current economy and unemployment and forget this health care bill which is'nt going to go into effect until 2013 anyway. I think that's the message.

[The Painter]

Since it was the Independents that insured Brown's victory, they will be the ones doing the milking, not the TPP.


Unfortunately, that probably won't stop the TP-types from trying to milk it. I think that was the point.

What makes you two think there are no Independents in the Tea Party? It's loaded with them.

[NobleXenon54]

Whether Brown is a "homophobe" or not (the word means about as much as "racist" -- "he disagrees with me on something"), his opposition to gay marriage is the same as that as most citizens of Massachusetts.

First, I would like to apologies. I didn't know that keeping a certain class of people from getting the same rights as other people - in this case gays, as being homophobic.

/sarcasm

Secondly, you probably don't know anything about Romney or same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Three years ago at this time, Governor Mitt Romney, who pretty much failed to get anything on his agenda passed while whatever he vetoed were just overriden, introduced a constitution amendment that would override the supreme court's rational decision to decriminalize same-sex marriage. At that time (2007), support for same-sex marriage broke the 50% mark. All the legislature had to do was to get at LEAST a 25% vote to make the ban vote-able on the 2008 ballot. Needless to say, it failed. Jump back to June of 2009, support for same-sex marriage, as well as other non-discrimination policies, have jumped in that state.

(Chart of Same-Sex Marriage Support Growing Over Time)
http://baselinescenario.com/2009/11/04/same-sex-marriage-and-time/

(Chart of Gay Rights Issues By State as of June 2009)
http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/06/16/opinions-on-gay-rights-issues-by-state/

(Article About Bigots Crying That Their Prayers For a Marriage Ban Didn't Work)
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/06/legislators_vot_1.html

(Peer Reviewed Articles about How these Statistics took Place)
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/06/gay_marriage_a.html

Nice try though.

[AvalonXQ]

First, I would like to apologies. I didn't know that keeping a certain class of people from getting the same rights as other people - in this case gays, as being homophobic.


I don't know what your first language is, but it clearly isn't English.
Take another course or two before you try to be witty and insulting. Attacks just don't have the same force when they defy grammar.

[Cicero]

Part of that has to be due to the boneheaded move of admonishing Brown for wanting to do this with "Ted Kennedy's seat". Talk about a powerful soundbite.

It was the hack David Gergen, the perennial revolving door journalist/political operative, who referred to the seat as Kennedy's.

GERGEN: "Mr. Brown, let me ask you this question, it's on a lot of people's minds. You said you're for health care reform, just not this bill. We know from the Clinton experience that if this bill fails, it could well be another 15 years before we see health care reform efforts in Washington. Are you willing under those circumstances to say, 'I'm going to be the person. I'm going to sit in Teddy Kennedy's seat and I'm going to be the person who's going to block it for another 15 years'?"


"Gergen admitted to National Review that Brown "stuffed me on that. ... Scott Brown gave a very good impression of who he was and what he stood for. He was fast on his feet." But Gergen is still confident that Coakley will carry the day next week. The voters of Massachusetts, he said, "want to show their frustration, but they aren’t willing or ready, yet, to send a Republican to the Senate."

"Gergen said that Democrat Martha Coakley “has to be considered the frontrunner at this point.” While Brown was strong during last night’s debate, Gergen said that Coakley came across “as more accessible as a person.” Plus, he believes that many Massachusetts Democrats, though unhappy with Coakley and Washington, will ultimately decide to vote for her over Brown next week because “they want to show their frustration, but they aren’t willing or ready, yet, to send a Republican to the Senate.” Gergen also noted that he’s still “as puzzled by the polls as everyone else, and just as fascinated by how this race is playing out.”

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmFhZmVhZDZiNmI1YmI5N2VlZmM1OWRkMzA2ZWI3MmQ

Gergen is equally inept at moderating political debates as he is at prognosticating.

[NobleXenon54]

I don't know what your first language is, but it clearly isn't English.
Take another course or two before you try to be witty and insulting. Attacks just don't have the same force when they defy grammar.

Typical.

No rebuttal, just an attack on a hyphen. Anyways, I'm still waiting for you to refute how teaching same-sex marriage to children is moral wrong. It's been what, over a month?

[edit] BTW, where are my attacks?

[AvalonXQ]

Typical.

No rebuttal, just an attack on a hyphen.

I didn't realize there was a hyphen missing. My problem was that neither of your two sentences actually read as sentences.

"First, I would like to apologies." Since "apologies" is not a verb, you either need to give your apologies, or apologize.
The second sentence has too many things wrong with it to parse. Perhaps you could try again? Without the snark, it might be possible to actually read your writing.

[Bob Blaylock]

This is my concern as well. I am worried that many power-players in the GOP will see this as a green light to filibuster anything and everything put forth by Obama and the Dems. Blatant obstructionism right now would be very very bad for the country.


If what is being obstructed is something harmful, then obstructionism is a good thing. I hope the GOP stands strong against this massive abomination that is being fraudulently pushed at us under the guise of “health care reform”. I hope they stop it dead in its tracks.

And if Comrade Obama tries to put forth another massive wasteful, fraudulent squandering of taxpayer money, under the guise of “economic stimulus”, I hope the GOP stops that, too.

And if he comes up with another scheme to destroy massive amounts of wealth, in the manner of the “Cash for Clunkers” scam, I hope the GOP stops that.

And if he wants to nationalize another once-great private company, as he did with General Motors…well, you get the idea.

We've got a President whose philosophies are much more in line with Karl Marx than with the great men who founded this nation, whose policies, if left unchecked, would be unprecedentedly-destructive to this nation, and a party in the majority that supports him.

In times like this, obstructionism is the thing that will save this nation.

[AvalonXQ]

The way I see it, it all looks a bit like this:
"Things are going badly! We need to DO SOMETHING!"
"No, things are going badly because we did too much already. What we need to do is let things take care of themselves."

[NobleXenon54]

I didn't realize there was a hyphen missing. My problem was that neither of your two sentences actually read as sentences.

"First, I would like to apologies." Since "apologies" is not a verb, you either need to give your apologies, or apologize.
The second sentence has too many things wrong with it to parse. Perhaps you could try again? Without the snark, it might be possible to actually read your writing.

Still no rebuttal.

Again, where are my attacks?

[AvalonXQ]

Still no rebuttal.

And still no correction, either.
At least your subsequent posts have been moderately grammatical.

[NobleXenon54]

And still no correction, either.
At least your subsequent posts have been moderately grammatical.

If you don't want to debate, then that's fine.

[Bob Blaylock]

The way I see it, it all looks a bit like this:
"Things are going badly! We need to DO SOMETHING!"
"No, things are going badly because we did too much already. What we need to do is let things take care of themselves."


Exactly. If the alternative is doing something that will only make things worse, then it is better to do nothing.

[AvalonXQ]

If you don't want to debate, then that's fine.

I'm sorry, but if we're going to debate something, I'm going to have to require that you stick to grammatical sentences. It's rather unfair if you're allowed to say things that I (and everyone else) can't actually understand.
If you feel that this is too big of a handicap against you, feel free to withdraw.

[Darth Rotor]

"Webb: Stop Senate votes until Brown is seated"

"Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) said the upper chamber shouldn't move forward with healthcare or any other bills until Brown is sworn in."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/76961-webb-no-senate-votes-until-brown-is-seated
No surprise. James Webb is that most curious creature, a Senator with a sense of personal honor.

DR

[AvalonXQ]

No surprise. James Webb is that most curious creature, a Senator with a sense of personal honor.

... which makes it difficult for him to conduct business, since most other senators instinctually crouch away and hiss in his presence.

[NobleXenon54]

I'm sorry, but if we're going to debate something, I'm going to have to require that you stick to grammatical sentences. It's rather unfair if you're allowed to say things that I (and everyone else) can't actually understand.
If you feel that this is too big of a handicap against you, feel free to withdraw.

It's obvious that you can read my "attack." I'm still waiting for that rebuttal from a month ago, unless that was grammatically incorrect too. (Along with ponderingturtle's?)