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?

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.

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 ...

Nobody wants to hear you rail against zombie rights.

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

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.

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

http://www.intrade.com/?request_operation=...ckHomePage=true

intrade 65/35 Brown

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.pdf

Raleigh, N.C. – Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 51-46 in Public Policy Polling’s final
survey of the Massachusetts Senate special election, an advantage within the poll’s
margin of error.

Brown’s lead comes thanks to an overwhelming advantage with independents and the
ability to pick off a decent number of Democrats. He’s getting the support of 19% of
voters in Coakley’s party, while she is winning just 8% of the Republican vote. The lead
with independents is 64-32.

Each candidate has seen a large decline in their favorability numbers as the campaign has
taken 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 after
being 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 Dems
who 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 the
Democratic 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 and
Martha Coakley is certainly still in this,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy
Polling. “She just needs to get more Democrats out to the polls.”

PPP surveyed 1,231 likely Massachusetts voters from January 16th to 17th. The margin
of error is +/-2.8%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may
introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

Brown by 8.76%

Book it.

Your mouth to God's ear...

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.



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

Maybe we should openly call for voter fraud like MSNBC's Ed Schulz

http://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.

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

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

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

Early & Often.

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?

I believe something like that is the nuclear option.

Edit: Except that it doesn't seem like it would need any non-democrat participation.

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).

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

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.

Come on you're talking about professional politicians.

The Democrats are considering just forcing the house to vote on the Senate bill. The problem is, after Coakley gets crushed today, most are saying they won't vote for it. One report I saw said that, even before today's MA race, the house vote is tied, at best. The house hates being bossed around by the Senate, so there may be a bit of spite.

The only thing keeping this option alive is that Dem's know they are in trouble in November either way, so they may just pass it hoping to lock in a few votes.

Oh, and I don't think Obama can just sit on a bill indefinitely. I think he has to sign it within a certain number of weeks or it is considered vetoed.



The Republicans have been trying to get a bill out this way; so far the Democrats have refused to even let anything out of committee.

This. My suggestion, like any that involves both sides, involves the willingness to listen to outside opinions by pelosi and reid. Soo... it's a ways off.

Reconciliation is different than what I'm suggesting. It's pretty confusing and I don't really understand it, but it's usually intended for budgetary matters, not for something as big as health care legislation. The other use of the term "Nuclear Option" involves making filibusters illegal.



I'm not saying alter the bill, I'm saying make a second bill while the first sits on Obama's desk.



I looked it up. It has to be signed within 10 days or it automatically becomes a law. If the 10th day is Sunday, it becomes 11 days. So, that's not really as much time as I had envisioned, but still time enough since they already have a bit of a head start (or at least should).

wait - if the president doesn't sign it, it still becomes a law if it just sits there? i thought it got automatically veto'd after a period, not passed.

The president has veto power, not make-it-law power. But the situation is slightly more complicated than LLY described.

If he waits 10 days while congress in session it becomes a law.

However, if congress adjourns before the 10 days are up, it does not become law.

This is due to the wording in the Constitution:

"… If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. "

thanks VB - learned something there

Brown is laying a beatdown here...

Coakley has conceded.


Final vote:

United States of America: 1
Insane Socialist Utopian Fantasies: 0

So true - time to watch the pundits say this doesn't matter

I am talking just have it written in pencill on a piece of paper and then putting on a full scale PR campaign. Tell the American people over an over again about the democrats refusal to let it out of committee.

Yep, and this is a major failure by the Republicans. It would have been easy to destroy the Democrats on this, but the Republicans are too worried about clinging to power to take a stance.

So many of them have it wrong. Rachel Maddow just said it can't be a protest against fiscal irresponsibility, because the health care bill was totally fiscally responsible.

Earlier Howard Dean said it was a protest against Bush. He quickly acted like he didn't say it and switched back to a message that makes sense.

Some Democrats seem to have gotten the message: health care is dead.

Amen. I wonder if the climate is right for a real third party challange. I don't know how bad the dems and reps have the rules rigged to keep this from happening but I am sure the obstacles are significant.. I can dream though.

Surely at least a couple of democrats will abandon ship to try and keep their seat. The Independants aren't going for this at all.

If Obama had any integrity he would.... well that point is moot.

Woo Hoo!!!!!!!!!!

Um...Genius if you really want to be elected out of office in '10 and '12. Not listening to the people is why the D's lost "Teddy's Seat" in the first place... Good luck winning in the future with doing more of the same.

It's pretty much totally rigged. Remember in the last election when neither party got their candidates paperwork in on time in Texas? They both got on the ballot anyway. And the Libertarians in some other state (CT? MA?) was a day late because the office was unexpectedly closed, even though they had all the paperwork signed and notarized and everything? They didn't get on the ballot. It's almost impossible for a third party to succeed.

BOOM!


Man I love when I am wrong sometimes.


I am sick of the decisiveness and the secret society elitist club like direction Washington has taken. I hope those bastards get the message, because there is only more of this coming. Absolute power running rough-shot over the country will not stand, no matter which party is in charge. This shit has to end.

Let's hope this is the beginning of the end and the start of a move back to fairness and balance, a move back to get REAL health care reform, REAL economic healing, REAL compromise and bi partisan solutions and not the forced closed door agenda of a few thugs.


I hope Brown wins with pride but leads with calm, humility and dignity.


grats

A Democratic senator from VA (they didn't say which one) released a statement that this election was a referendum not only on health care, but also on the broken transparency promises. He called for the Democrats to open up the process and to suspend all voting on health care until Brown is seated.

Holy crap.

Jim Webb. He's as decent as a politician gets I think.

I mean, that is a nice way to gain some political points with certain groups, but it really makes no procedural sense. The senate already passed the bill (by 10 votes I might add). Unless I'm misunderstanding something they can't very well stop legislation that was already passed because a single seat has changed after the vote -- nor should they.

I thought this bill was all but passed as well, but the folks in the media are saying Brown could stop it somehow. No idea how that stuff works.




I will chuckle at those tomorrow who will no doubt be saying to calm down and that this is not that big a deal. That kind of talk will only further insure an earthquake in November.

What people tomorrow do you think will be talking about it not being a big deal?

Do I get to make fun of you if people in general aren't saying it's not a big deal?

OK so I was a little short on the percentage but Brown still won!




Over/Under on how long it takes Limbaugh/Beck to call him a RINO?

Thank you, Mass.