Mass Senate - Special Election

[SB Shock]

Democrats are wetting their pants right now. Rep. Brown has narrowed the race against Dem. Coakley

Rasumussen has shown the race has tightened from +9 down to +2 for Coakley.

PPP (a democratic Pollster) has it +1 Brown. The race has went from a slam dunk for the Democrats to up for grabs. I can't imagine the Democrats will allow this seat to be lost. They will do whatever it takes to hold on to this seat (legal or illegal) - Democrats super majority is at risk.

On another side note, Mass. election officials say it could take weeks to certify the election due to state election laws. Though the same election officials bypassed the rules in 2007 in certifying House of Represenatives so they could get the Demorats another vote to help overide a Bush veto.

[Maggie]

I have been keeping an eye on this special election. Brown has made it a race (which is remarkable feat) but you have to remember this is Massachusetts.

While would like him to win, obviously, the fact that Brown is competitive is a victory of sorts: (1) The DNC is pouring in cash and personnel to aid Coakley – something they never, in a million years, thought they would have to do; and (2) if Brown comes within 10 points or less it sends a huge message to other Democrats.

That said I am much more optimistic than I ever thought I would be about this race. Here is why: I work with several people in Massachusetts one of which I had not spoken to in a while. She and I used to talk politics on a regular basis, differing in opinion nine times out of ten. She is a lifelong Democrat voter, harbors a long-standing distaste for George W. Bush, and slants left on most issues - social and fiscal. Anyway, last week we had to touch base and without any specific prompt from me, she uncorked an unsolicited rant against expanding government influence and spending that left me momentarily speechless. She was particularly furious about the health-care debate (a family member is battling cancer), the "out-of-control" debt, and the "blatant lying" from those “coordinating the show”. Her best line? "Just because I don't want my kids paying off national debts for their entire lives doesn't mean I'm a racist."

Capping off the cathartic diatribe, she worried aloud how a government that "screws up Cash for Clunkers and runs the horrible post office" could possibly run the heath-care system. She angrily asserted that vote-buying maneuvers in the Senate "should be illegal" for decisions on important issues like changing the entire role of government. She even hinted (I didn't ask) that she was so turned off she planned to vote for Brown in the special election.

A real-life, first-hand example of the conservative re-awakening America is experiencing, and anecdotal confirmation of the polling data. Happy New Year, Democrats. If you've lost this left-of-center suburban female from Massachusetts, you're probably in for a world of hurt in 2010.

[WuDrWu]

I will readily admit I know nothing of either option in Mass. but I did hear Rep. Scott Brown for about 3 minutes yesterday and he, at first glance, appeared to be a thoughtful, decent and well mannered, and immensely qualified for the position.

He's served more than 20 years in the National Guard and knows more about self sacrifice than most Americans, certainly more than I will ever know.

The people of Massachusetts will decide an important election. All I can hope for is that they make an informed choice on their desires, and not be swayed by anyone with an agenda separated from the people of that state.

[Maggie]

Brown is not the perfect “conservative” candidate. He is not a down-the-line conservative, a development that isn't that surprising, as he's representing a community in deep-blue state. But he is close enough for Massachusetts and he is getting tons of support from traditional conservative publications and pundits – which is the correct and practical thing to do.

I hope he is able to pull this off.

[SB Shock]

A new poll came out from Blue Mass Group/Research America (Democrat) showing Coakley 49%, Brown 41% with 5% undecided.

Brown does have a significant lead with independents (49 to 36%). But the PPP and Rasmussen polls had him with overwhelming leads against independents (63% and 71% respectively) and that is why Brown was doing much better in those polls. Also it looks like Rasmussen used "Very Likely Voters" instead of "likely voters"
.
I think only way Brown was going to win if it was if he could have did it more "stealthy". But Democrats won't allow it to happen now. Plenty of resources will be pushed into Mass.

[Maggie]

Special elections are very hard to predict through polling – the polls are all over the place and always are in these cases. The fact that Coakley is below 50% in the poll you reference is a serious warning sign – for her. While the race getting national attention did alert the DNC they had a problem it also helped Brown raise some (a lot) much needed cash – so it cuts both ways. Also, I am not convinced that the DNC pulling out all the stops will help Coakley all that much – it had a minimal impact in New Jersey which is also a very blue state.

Interestingly, the Boston Herald reports, this morning, that Brown has a four point lead (which means they think it is a dead heat):

Poll shocker: Scott Brown surges ahead in Senate race

Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.

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.”

***
Paleologos said bellweather models show high numbers of independent voters turning out on election day, which benefits Brown, who has 65 percent of that bloc compared to Coakley’s 30 percent. Kennedy earns just 3 percent of the independent vote, and 1 percent are undecided.

Given the 4.4-point margin of error, the poll shows Coakley could win the race, Paleologos said. But if Brown’s momentum holds, he is poised to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy - and to halt health-care reform, the issue the late senator dubbed “the cause of my life.”

Yet even in the bluest state, it appears Kennedy’s quest for universal health care has fallen out of favor, with 51 percent of voters saying they oppose the “national near-universal health-care package” and 61 percent saying they believe the government cannot afford to pay for it.

[WuDrWu]

I heard Coakley this morning (on tape) when asked about her opposition to Brown's opinion that emergency room personnel not be forced to perform abortions if it's against their religious beliefs her response was:

“You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/14/game-changermartha-coakley-devout-catholics-probably-shouldnt-work-in-the-emergency-room-video/

How someone this out of touch with society (that can't be a stance held by more than 10% of the public, even in Massachusetts) can even be considered for a national office speaks volumes about politics today.

The interview has a few other gems.

[Maggie]

The interview has a few other gems.

You think? And that interview doesn't even scratch the surface.

I listened to the interview too. Coakley is an absolute disaster and certainly symbolic of an insulated party hack. I believe she also said something along the lines of people are “allowed” to have religious freedom.

“Allowed”. Really? “Allowed”. Gee, thanks so much Martha. :yahoo: Think about that for second and tell me what is wrong with the formulation: People are “allowed” to have religious freedom.

As an aside, logically extending Coakley’s comments, noted above, a bit further I guess hospitals run by the Catholic Church should not have emergency rooms. :roll:

[ISASO]

Surely, even in Mass., there cannot be more than 100 people who support her belief that the government 'allows' people to have religious freedom.

Why is she on the ballot? Why would this election even be close?

Is she a member of the Democrat Party or the Stalinist Party?

[SB Shock]

A poll by Cross Target (Republican) is showing a surge for Brown (+15.4%).

Brown 53.9%
Coakley 38.5%
Undecided 7.6%

Brown has 60% favorable, Coakley 51% unfavorable

This would be huge if it happens.

One of the questions that some are posing - "Does Obama want Coakley to lose?". The health care fiasco is becoming to be a huge rock around Obama neck and might be crippling with the will of the American people against it. If Coakley loses this would give him an out.

[Maggie]

Wow, this is disturbing:

Martha Coakley's Convictions - The role played by the U.S. Senate candidate in a notorious sex case raises questions about her judgment

[Maggie]

One of the questions that some are posing - "Does Obama want Coakley to lose?". The health care fiasco is becoming to be a huge rock around Obama neck and might be crippling with the will of the American people against it. If Coakley loses this would give him an out.

A couple points:

(1) At this point I don't think Obama wants to be closely associated with this election; and

(2) A Brown win could help him in theory but he would have to move back toward the center and quickly. If the health-care legislation doesn’t pass – people will still blame him for trying so hard to get something passed…..the more I think about it….the more I am talking myself out of it actually helping him….at least in the short run.

Good question, though.

[WuDrWu]

Maggie, I have heard some off handed comments about how long it might take to certify this election, ostensibly if Brown were to win.

Are there national rules as to when the winner of such and election must or can be seated, or are those rules only defined by the state overseeing the election?

[Maggie]

Maggie, I have heard some off handed comments about how long it might take to certify this election, ostensibly if Brown were to win.

Are there national rules as to when the winner of such and election must or can be seated, or are those rules only defined by the state overseeing the election?

I think there are rules that apply at the state level and in the Senate. Theoretically, that vote could come immediately when the Senate begins its new session. Technically, and don't hold me to this, the Senate cannot act until final certification by the state but that has been waived in the past. The state could hold off certification until they stop accepting absentee and military ballots. Again - this technically has been ignored in the past. Whether the state is truly justified in waiting will depend on how close the election is and how many outstanding ballots there are.

If I were in the Democratic Party, I am not sure I would want to be seen as playing politics with this issue. Talk about toxic – a vast majority of the public, whether you agree with the health-care legislation or not, would…..I don’t even know how I would describe the reaction but it would not be positive.

But this is all moot at this point.

[SB Shock]

Kiss of Death for Coakley? She says that Curt Schilling is a Yankee Fan. :whistle:

[for the baseball impared] Schilling never played for the Yankees and Schilling lead the Red Sox to their first world series victory since 1918. He pitched in the 2nd game despite being injured (his sock was bloody after the game). Being called one of the guttiest performances in baseball history]

Insult Christians - probably can get away with that. Insult Red Sox Fans...