Revolution In Massachusetts

[hblask 1]

So Democrats have held the senate seat recently vacated by Teddy "Drink-and-Drive" Kennedy for over 50 years. Their current candidate, Coakley, had a 30 point lead as recently as December.The may want to hold off on opening that champagne.Brown, of course, would be the crucial vote that could kill the health care bill.Coakley's campaign has collapsed in the last week, thanks to the following:* She said in a debate that there were no terrorists in Afghanistan (despite several MA residents being killed there recently).* One of her staffers (and Obama insider) knocked down a reporter for trying to ask her questions.* She scoffed at the idea that she should stand outside Fenway Park shaking hands like her opponent has, and said instead she had to meet with important political insiders.* She suggested that Catholics shouldn't work in emergency rooms if they objected to abortions. (MA has the second highest percentage of Catholics of any state).Additionally, the Democratic machine rigged the debates so that the moderator was a lefty hack, and when he asked Brown about 'Kennedy's seat', Brown replied "It's the people's seat, not Kennedy's".I know the Vikings have a big game this weekend, but I'm so geeky I'm actually more excited about this election on Tuesday.One poll showed Brown up by 15, but it was a little know place with no real track record, and the sample included too few Democrats to be reliable. But the real number is probably around a 5 point lead now for Brown, from what I can tell.Obama is going to MA to campaign for her this weekend. If the margin of victory for Brown is, say, more than 5 or 6 points, what will be Obama's spin?

[CaneBrain 95]

My guess is that Democrats will stop taking this race for granted and do just enough at the 23rd hour to ensure a small Coakley win.2010 is going to be an interesting year, I can feel it.

[hblask 1]

My guess is that Democrats will stop taking this race for granted and do just enough at the 23rd hour to ensure a small Coakley win.2010 is going to be an interesting year, I can feel it.

One article quoted a Coakley insider as saying that if Coakley didn't have a 5 point lead with about 5 days to go, she was going to lose. That was based totally on momentum, I guess, so I'm not sure how true it is. I suspect the Chicago Machine will get out the Dead People vote and you will be right, but still, at least it's exciting.

[dapokerbum 0]

I bet that there will be some debacle at which point one side will demand a recount which will inevitably leave the seat open until after the health care bill passes ...

[CaneBrain 95]

One article quoted a Coakley insider as saying that if Coakley didn't have a 5 point lead with about 5 days to go, she was going to lose. That was based totally on momentum, I guess, so I'm not sure how true it is. I suspect the Chicago Machine will get out the Dead People vote and you will be right, but still, at least it's exciting.

Nobody wants to hear you rail against zombie rights.

[85suited 0]

My guess is that Democrats will stop taking this race for granted and do just enough at the 23rd hour to ensure a small Coakley win.2010 is going to be an interesting year, I can feel it.

I can't believe about to do this - CANE "QFT"

[hblask 1]

http://hubpolitics.com/2010/01/17/breaking...08-coakley-412/

A poll conducted by the Merriman River Group (MRG) and InsideMedford.com indicates that Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 50.8% – 41.2% in the contest to fill the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Liberty Party candidate Joe Kennedy pulls in just 1.8% support, while 6.2% of voters are still not sure. Brown and Coakley both have most of their supporters locked in. 98% of both candidate’s supporters say they are definitely or probably going to vote for their candidate. In contrast, 22% of Kennedy’s supporters are just leaning toward him, suggesting that Brown and Coakley may both want to take aim at swaying those voters. Not surprisingly, nearly all of Coakley’s supporters approve of President Obama’s job performance, while three-quarters of Brown’s supporters disapprove. Coakley may see a glimmer of hope in the fact that more than two-thirds of undecided voters approve of the president’s job performance while only 6% disapprove, especially in light of the president’s swing through the state to campaign for her later today.

[85suited 0]

I would think reasonable minds would agree that this is a referendum on OBAMA. We will see what the massholes say!I would be suprised to see a Rep win in Mass.. considering their entire delegation is Dem

[85suited 0]

http://www.intrade.com/?request_operation=...ckHomePage=trueintrade 65/35 Brown

[hblask 1]

Maths fail? Isn't 5 greater than 2.8? Anyway, this is a relatively respected polling place, although they tend to lean Democratic.[EDIT: My math fail, it's 2.8% per candidate, isn't it? Nothing else would really make sense.]http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP...17468963846.pdfRaleigh, N.C. – Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 51-46 in Public Policy Polling’s finalsurvey of the Massachusetts Senate special election, an advantage within the poll’smargin of error.Brown’s lead comes thanks to an overwhelming advantage with independents and theability to pick off a decent number of Democrats. He’s getting the support of 19% ofvoters in Coakley’s party, while she is winning just 8% of the Republican vote. The leadwith independents is 64-32.Each candidate has seen a large decline in their favorability numbers as the campaign hastaken on an increasingly negative tone. Brown’s +19 at 56/37, down 13 points from his+32 (57/25) standing a week ago. Coakley’s now in negative territory at 44/51 afterbeing at a positive 50/42 previously, a 15 point net decline.Republicans continue to show much more enthusiasm about the election than Democrats,with 89% of them saying they’re ‘very excited’ to go vote compared to 63% of Demswho express that sentiment. Brown has a 59-40 lead among voters in that category.The likely electorate for Tuesday’s election continues to express skepticism about theDemocratic health care plan with 48% saying they’re opposed to 40% who support it.President Obama’s approval stands at 44/43.“Brown has a small advantage right now but special elections are unusually volatile andMartha Coakley is certainly still in this,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public PolicyPolling. “She just needs to get more Democrats out to the polls.”PPP surveyed 1,231 likely Massachusetts voters from January 16th to 17th. The marginof error is +/-2.8%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, mayintroduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Brown by 8.76%Book it.

[Balloon guy 158]

Brown by 8.76%Book it.

Your mouth to God's ear...

[akoff 0]

I would think reasonable minds would agree that this is a referendum on OBAMA. We will see what the massholes say!I would be suprised to see a Rep win in Mass.. considering their entire delegation is Dem

Based on the fact that this election is in Mass...and it is Teddy's seat....and it is close...and the Republican party has a reasonable chance at winning....I would say BHO should not get to comfortable in the White House.

Your mouth to God's ear...

please please please. the Lord works in some mysterious ways.

[85suited 0]

Maybe we should openly call for voter fraud like MSNBC's Ed Schulzhttp://race42008.com/2010/01/19/msnbc-host...-vote-20-times/

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Maybe we should openly call for voter fraud like MSNBC's Ed Schulzhttp://race42008.com/2010/01/19/msnbc-host...-vote-20-times/

I have a feeling there will be plenty. I don't believe a republican is going to win that seat no matter what any poll says. I Hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

[nutzbuster 7]

Brown loses in a run-off (ala Franken) as thousands of mysterious ballots suddenly show up at the last second. Mayhem ensues.I just cannot believe Mass. will go red but I would love to be wrong on this one

[akoff 0]

Brown loses in a run-off (ala Franken) as thousands of mysterious ballots suddenly show up at the last second. Mayhem ensues.I just cannot believe Mass. will go red but I would love to be wrong on this one

While i do agree with you on the Mass going red...maybe just maybe the people will realize how bad these guys in charge are...and finally pull the plug on them.concern about voter fraud is certainly valid...this is a kennedy territory and nobody can stuff a balot box like a kennedy....cept those guys from Chicago

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Brown loses in a run-off (ala Franken) as thousands of mysterious ballots suddenly show up at the last second. Mayhem ensues.

If this election is "decided" before June 1st I'll be amazed.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

While i do agree with you on the Mass going red...maybe just maybe the people will realize how bad these guys in charge are...and finally pull the plug on them.concern about voter fraud is certainly valid...this is a kennedy territory and nobody can stuff a balot box like a kennedy....cept those guys from Chicago

Kennedy himself may vote 4 or 5 times in this election.Early & Often.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Okay, so here's my idea.Let's say I'm a Democrat and I'm interested in passing health care. In the event that we lose a Senate seat, we no longer have our immortal 60 senators to block a filibuster. But, the Senate has already passed a health care bill. If the house votes in favor of that bill, it does to the President's desk and can be signed into law. The house is already saying that it may simply sign the senate version if they lose their 60th vote because that bill is better than no bill.Here's my idea. Have the house vote in favor of the senate bill. Send the senate bill to the President's desk to be signed into law. Obama will then leave the bill on his desk and not sign it, at least not at first. He will pocket veto the bill until a time of his choosing. Then, have the house and senate continue negotiations on how to consolidate senate and house bills. This means that, no matter what happens, a health care bill will be passed. So, filibustering negotiations does nothing, because there's already a bill on Obama's desk waiting to be signed. This will force Republicans and Democrats to get together to actually make a bill that is BETTER instead of worrying about getting 60 votes by one party and trying to sabotage the bill by the other party.In the event that the house and senate come together to make a better bill, Obama signs that and tears up the first one.Genius? Is this politically feasible?

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Genius? Is this politically feasible?

I believe something like that is the nuclear option.Edit: Except that it doesn't seem like it would need any non-democrat participation.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

It is a fantastic idea that is not politically feasible in my humble opinion. you already have democrats pissed that the senate bill is not liberal enough and refusing to talk to republicans, and the fiscal conservatives who have problems with basically every one of the 3000 pages in the bill. And that's really the problem. There is so much absolute nonsense after 3,000 pages that you have a bill that contains so much that there isn't a single person in america who could honestly be happy with every provision. Even a big chunk of the people that feel like they have to vote for it because they like the underlying ideas of it are going to lose their seats because there is so much garbage in the implementation. To do health care reform right, you have to pass it piece by inarguable piece that very few people have a reason to vote against. Is there anyone except trial lawyers who thinks we shouldn't do tort reform? Cool, **** the trial lawyers, pass that as a single bill. No riders, no amendments, just that piece. Who's going to vote against it?Is there anyone who actually thinks an open marketplace for insurance across state lines is a bad idea? Every republican and plenty of democrats and independents seem to think it's a good idea... Pass that as one bill.etc down the line. This is where you can find the compromise. "Get on board for our bill about opening up competition and we can vote for yours on subisidies to allow people to buy their own insurance with government help now that they have cheaper and more plentiful options". I just don't see a way in this polarized climate of passing a single bill that both sides aren't pissed at or ashamed of (with the exception of pelosi and the truly out there).

[phlegm 6]

Okay, so here's my idea.Let's say I'm a Democrat and I'm interested in passing health care. In the event that we lose a Senate seat, we no longer have our immortal 60 senators to block a filibuster. But, the Senate has already passed a health care bill. If the house votes in favor of that bill, it does to the President's desk and can be signed into law. The house is already saying that it may simply sign the senate version if they lose their 60th vote because that bill is better than no bill.Here's my idea. Have the house vote in favor of the senate bill. Send the senate bill to the President's desk to be signed into law. Obama will then leave the bill on his desk and not sign it, at least not at first. He will pocket veto the bill until a time of his choosing. Then, have the house and senate continue negotiations on how to consolidate senate and house bills. This means that, no matter what happens, a health care bill will be passed. So, filibustering negotiations does nothing, because there's already a bill on Obama's desk waiting to be signed. This will force Republicans and Democrats to get together to actually make a bill that is BETTER instead of worrying about getting 60 votes by one party and trying to sabotage the bill by the other party.In the event that the house and senate come together to make a better bill, Obama signs that and tears up the first one.Genius? Is this politically feasible?

Im sure a bill on the prez desk cant be altered without another vote.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

It is a fantastic idea that is not politically feasible in my humble opinion. you already have democrats pissed that the senate bill is not liberal enough and refusing to talk to republicans, and the fiscal conservatives who have problems with basically every one of the 3000 pages in the bill. And that's really the problem. There is so much absolute nonsense after 3,000 pages that you have a bill that contains so much that there isn't a single person in america who could honestly be happy with every provision. Even a big chunk of the people that feel like they have to vote for it because they like the underlying ideas of it are going to lose their seats because there is so much garbage in the implementation. To do health care reform right, you have to pass it piece by inarguable piece that very few people have a reason to vote against. Is there anyone except trial lawyers who thinks we shouldn't do tort reform? Cool, **** the trial lawyers, pass that as a single bill. No riders, no amendments, just that piece. Who's going to vote against it?Is there anyone who actually thinks an open marketplace for insurance across state lines is a bad idea? Every republican and plenty of democrats and independents seem to think it's a good idea... Pass that as one bill.etc down the line. This is where you can find the compromise. "Get on board for our bill about opening up competition and we can vote for yours on subisidies to allow people to buy their own insurance with government help now that they have cheaper and more plentiful options". I just don't see a way in this polarized climate of passing a single bill that both sides aren't pissed at or ashamed of (with the exception of pelosi and the truly out there).

I don't understand why the republicans don't do that anyway. A simple bill that is easy to understand, they make the rounds on television really give it a pr boost, then make the democrats shut it down. Then do the next piece. There proposals will be simple to understand as opposed to the monstracity that is the democrat plan. Put the democrats in the position of being the obstuctionists. Too late now to do this. There is no way the democrats would support any of this in todays climate, but Newt got some of his contract with America through by doing this. Of course Clinton wisely took credit and the media followed suit, but who cares who takes credit. Get something done that helps the country then argue over who gets the credit.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Get something done that helps the country then argue over who gets the credit.

Come on you're talking about professional politicians.