Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

New poll shows Brown ahead in Mass. Senate special election

1. A new Suffolk University poll shows state Sen. Scott Brown (R) has surged to a 50 percent to 46 percent lead over state Attorney General Martha Coakley with four days left in the Massachusetts Senate special election. The poll, which was released late Thursday night, reveals fascinating data, most of which paints a tough portrait for Coakley. An example: Just one in four voters think she will be an independent voice while 64 percent said she would "toe the party line." The poll suggests that Coakley's best (last?) chance to salvage the race might be to bring President Obama to the state; Obama is still viewed positively in the state with 55 percent having a favorable opinion of him and 35 percent regarding him unfavorably. The White House has been mum about a last-minute Obama visit although a trip by the president to the state even as the disaster in Haiti continues to play out on television screens across the country would be a clear risk. The new Suffolk numbers come just as the television airwaves have reached their saturation point -- one Republican tells the Fix that there is almost no television time left to buy. What that likely means is that the paid media for both sides will likely cancel itself out and the final few days will be a battle for so-called earned media -- a.k.a. press coverage by the state's newspapers, television channels and radio stations. That means that what Coakley and Brown do -- or don't do -- tactically over the next few days on the stump can make all the difference. Still, Coakley is hoping to break through the ad clamor with her closing ad, an endorsement spot from Vicki Kennedy, the widow of the late Senator, that hits airwaves this morning. "It's not the Kennedy seat, it's the peoples' seat," she says in the ad. "The mother struggling to make ends meet, the father trying to find a job. My husband fought for them and so does Martha Coakley." We asked one smart strategist from each party to break down what their side needs to do to win on Tuesday. From the Democratic side: "It is about the message -- can Brown really be an effective ambassador for you to Washington? The answer is no, but we aren't there yet. If they make it about that message, we will win. If they make it about Democratic big-wigs, we will lose." From the Republican side: "Brown needs to keep doing what he's been doing, partly riding a national wave that might engulf Massachusetts, and partly being a nice guy Republican who's a reasonable alternative to the chilly Coakley. Brown has been skillfully riding these two waves and that's got him in likely a dead heat in a 3-1 Democratic state."

2. Fight! Fight! Fight! There are few things better to a political junkie than a scrap between two high-level consultants. So, you can imagine our joy when a Post op-ed by Obama administration senior adviser David Axelrod chastising former Bush White House senior adviser Karl Rove came across the transom. The column functioned as a rebuttal to comments Rove made last week in the Post regarding advice he would offer Democrats heading into the midterms. Rove wrote (among other things) that Democrats will have accumulated "more debt by October than Bush did in eight years." Not so, according to Axelrod who slams Rove for his "sheer audacity and shamelessness." (No. He. Didn't.) Axelrod argues that the "Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined" and lays the origins of the economic recession at the feet of policies put into place by Bush. "This fiscal irresponsibility -- and a laissez-faire attitude toward the excesses of the financial industry -- helped create the conditions for the deepest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression," writes Axelrod. While the Axelrod vs. Rove dynamic is interesting only to those of us who follow politics closely, the fight over who is to blame for the current economic woes gripping the country is critically important to both parties heading into the midterm elections. Democrats point out -- as does Axelrod in his op-ed -- that the actions taken by Obama in his first year in office were necessary evils to clean up the mess left by Bush. Republican retort that Obama took a bad situation and made it far worse by boosting government spending rather than finding ways to boost the private sector. It's a debate that you will be hearing a lot more between now and November.

3. One week removed from the retirement of Sen. Chris Dodd (D), a new Quinnipiac University poll shows state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) far ahead of his Republican rivals. Blumenthal holds a 62 percent to 27 percent edge over former Rep. Rob Simmons (R) and a 64 percent to 23 percent margin over wealthy businesswoman Linda McMahon (R). His approval numbers are also stratospherically good with nearly three quarters of the state's voters seeing him in a favorable light and just 13 percent regarding him unfavorably. Even Republicans view Blumenthal in an extremely positive light with 62 percent giving him a favorable rating and just 29 percent seeing him unfavorably. Those numbers will almost certainly decline once Republicans pick a candidate and, for the first time in two decades, Blumenthal must run a serious campaign. But, he starts with a huge edge that would be the envy of almost any politician in the country. The news is far less positive in the poll for Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) who is already a top Democratic target despite the fact he isn't up for reelection until 2012. Just 39 percent of the sample approved of how Lieberman is doing his job while 54 percent disapproved -- significant erosion for the incumbent since a November Q poll that showed him at 49 approve/44 disapprove. Already Rep. Chris Murphy is positioning himself for the Democratic nomination to run against Lieberman although there is some talk that Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz, who dropped out of the governor's race to run for state Attorney General earlier this week, might also take a serious look at a bid too.

4. Speaking of lopsided Senate races, a new Research 2000 poll for the liberal Daily Kos blog affirms that North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven (R) is the runaway favorite to flip retiring Sen. Byron Dorgan's seat in the fall. Hoeven, who is currently in his third term as governor, holds a commanding 56 percent to 32 percent lead over television talk show host Ed Schultz (D) and a 55 percent to 34 percent edge over former state Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp (D). Hoeven beat Heitkamp 55 percent to 45 percent to win his first term in 2000. Even more troubling than the horse race numbers for Democrats is the dismal approval rating for the party and President Obama in the state. Just 25 percent of voters have a favorable opinion of the Democratic party while a whopping 61 percent view the party unfavorably. Obama fares better -- 41 favorable/54 unfavorable -- but his numbers are down significantly in a state he only lost by eight points in 2008.

5. If it's Friday, it's the "Live Fix" chat. And, what a chat it will be with the Massachusetts Senate race just 96 hours away, "Game Change" out and a trio of Republican retirements in recent weeks. You can submit questions in advance or just follow along in real time from 11 a.m. to noon. Be there!

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 15, 2010; 5:43 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Cook, Rothenberg move Mass. Senate to "toss up"
Next: House playing field grows, Republican opportunities increase

Comments

O'Bama did not even know what state he was in as he began his speetch here in Boston this weekend! I guess the teleprompter was busted, huh? And so I should do what he says?

Lemmie tell ya, this Brown guy is a REAL PERSON, not some synthetic concoction of a political machine. I'm sure he has many of the "politician" issues that surround them all, but he is honest and a patriot. Martha Maciavelli, on the other hand...

Posted by: FrankTrades | January 18, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Another, really - really bad day for the DEMOCRUDS.

Posted by: stephenwhelton | January 15, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

CNN reporting that Obama will campaign in Boston on Sunday!!! LAYING IT ALL OUT ON THE LINE

Posted by: JakeD | January 15, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

that is what I have you for Blade. It is a charity drive called "keep a liberal employed". I prefer it to simply sending my tax dollars via the treasury to out of work and out of ideas liberals who get paid to do nothing all day. eg - drindl.

PS = Mauricio is back.

Posted by: drivl | January 15, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the trolls are trying hard to drive all the liberal posters away... not surprising, after all, it's not as though conservative ideas can succeed on their merits.

And needless to note, CC is happy with this state of affairs.. oh, he'll ban one of zouk's monikers eventually, cover for banning me for noting there's gambling at Rick's, but the others will remain. Gotta keep up the hit count.

Another cherry picked poll. How very Soviet of you. Truth? Who cares?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 15, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Hold on to your hoe. It turns out that the fruits and veggies used in a special edition of the popular Food Network TV show “Iron Chef America” featuring first lady Michelle Obama did not, in fact, come from the White House garden. Could there be a more deliciously fitting symbol of Obama White House fakery than Garden-Gate?

Some may shrug at this tempest in a colander. But as we approach the one-year anniversary of the Hope and Change inauguration, the first lady’s little horticultural hoax serves as a handy metaphor for a cornucopia of Obama fraud. They’ve stocked health care town halls with partisan goons and benefactors. They’ve provided lab coats to doctor donors to make their health care lobbying look more authentic. And they’ve treated soldiers, in President Obama’s own words, as “pretty good photo ops.”

It’s the haute cuisine version of disgraced CBS News fabricator Dan Rather’s fake-but-accurate card. But this is just the latest Potemkin produce from a Potemkin presidency.

To wit: White House number-crunchers and Democratic fuzzy mathematicians have been cooking the books on stimulus jobs numbers and government health care takeover costs. They desperately ditched the “jobs saved or created” recipe for a jobs-funded concoction to salvage the illusion of economic recovery. They’ve inflated deficit reduction estimates and downplayed doctor reimbursement cuts. And they’ve done so behind a locked kitchen door.

Posted by: drivl | January 15, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama now looks like he will go to Copenhagen, I mean Massachusetts.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I see Zouk is copying and pasting unattributed material again. The latest item was from the National Review.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 15, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama now looks like he will go to Copenhagen, I mean Massachusetts.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

While Obama offers false historical analogies, apologies for his country, and exaggerated accounts of Muslim achievement, he nevertheless tries to now follow/now deny the hated Bush anti-terrorism protocols and the Bush/Petraeus plans for Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing is more dangerous in war than fighting an enemy while trying to beg peace from him at the same time. Ask Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier, Lyndon Johnson, or Jimmy Carter.

So, like the British and French in 1939, LBJ in the 1960s, and Jimmy Carter, the Great Satan of 1979, we are sleepwalking through a real war, mixing therapy and tragedy, peace and war, appeasement and violence, outreach and Predators.

Soon the enemy will take our sad measure, reenergize and escalate, and make us choose either to fight or to desist — as we pray that another Churchill or Reagan rides in over the horizon.

Posted by: drivl | January 15, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

We are back in a such a sorta, kinda war against radical Islam — whose name we almost never reference. We send more troops into Afghanistan, but only on the condition that we announce deadlines when they will start leaving. We damn the now-successful Iraq War as ill-conceived and not worth the effort, even as we stay in Iraq and consider the present calm and enduring democracy a (quiet) success.

The president has libeled tribunals, renditions, the Patriot Act, Predator attacks, wiretaps, and intercepts as either shredding the Constitution or unfairly persecuting Muslims — only to keep all these protocols intact. Obama loudly promised the whiny Europeans and the angry Islamic world that he would close the supposed gulag at Guantanamo within a year — and then found he could not do without its apparent utility.

Deadlines are a favorite of our president. But does anyone believe that Guantanamo will be closed on January 21? Iran was to desist from its efforts to obtain the bomb before the U.N. summit in New York, and then before the G-20 summit, and then before the face-to-face negotiations in October, and then by the first of the year.

Sometimes we “reach out” to the unhinged Ahmadinejad and ignore his brave opponents who are risking their lives in the streets; at other times, we lecture the theocracy about its bad behavior in sponsoring terror and violating nuclear non-proliferation agreements. We both damn and praise Israel for its “settlements” — appointing its enemies to the Obama administration, while assuring its friends that U.S. policy remains unchanged.

When Mr. Abdulmutallab tried to blow himself up, along with 300 other passengers, Obama’s initial, though belated, reactions were that the terrorist had “allegedly” tried to commit mass murder, and that he was an “isolated extremist,” despite clear ties to Yemeni terrorists. Our Homeland Security head proclaimed that the system had “worked” — for about 24 hours, until she was politely disabused of that lunatic notion. Abdulmutallab was promised a civilian trial, apparently on the grounds that this non-uniformed enemy combatant was caught on American soil — although his intent was instead to float down upon it as human ash.

Posted by: drivl | January 15, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

could we please get back to ranting about glen beck. this would not be drivl's personal ego site without it.
later chrissy foxxy will arrive to curse and vomit about palin.

what day is it? did the topic change?

Posted by: drivl | January 15, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Banning is a myth.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 15, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

The majority of MA voters are opposed to amnesty for illegals, and also the majority is opposed to forcing taxpayers footing the bill for "medically unnecessary" abortions.

So they will vote for Scott Brown.

Posted by: tncdel | January 15, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

It's kind of telling that this is the most intelligent rightwing comment I've seen today. And even then, there's the idiocy about socialized medicine.
Posted by: DDAWD
---------------------------------------
Yes I agree, socialized medicine, like most socialized anything, is idiocy. At least that’s been the history.

Posted by: leapin | January 15, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"This is a huge development, as the race now looks to be Brown's. Last minute endorsements have not fueled victory very ofter as of late. Examples: US Sen. Domenice endorsing US Rep. Heather Wilson in a primary, and Wilson losing the primary to Steve Pearce in NM. Obama's stumping in NJ in November for Jon Corzine, as he lost the Governor's race to Republican Chris Christie. A Republican wave is here and Scott Brown looks as if he will ride it to victory. That will end the Democrat's super majority and will kill the idea of socialized medicine in this country.

Posted by: reason5"

It's kind of telling that this is the most intelligent rightwing comment I've seen today. And even then, there's the idiocy about socialized medicine.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 15, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Who takes the first shot at politicizing a disaster - go to the Kraziest person in the world:

The devastating earthquake in Haiti, which may have killed tens of thousands or more, “reminded” MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann of why ObamaCare is needed in the United States as he saw “what health care reform really means” in Haiti’s “awful message of nightmarish reality.” Later, he seriously contended the Haiti disaster makes “a good frame of reference in terms of the health care issue,” as he speculated about a quake destroying Los Angeles:

How would survivors of something like this here fare in terms of getting on their own feet economically afterwards, with the health care system we have in place right now?

After smearing Rush Limbaugh as a “deranged racist,” Olbermann teased Wednesday night’s Countdown: “We are reminded of what health care reform really means by an awful message of nightmarish reality from a place, a place this time not so very far away.” MSNBC’s on-screen heading, as he spoke, sealed the link between Haiti and the domestic policy: “REAL REFORM NECESSARY; LATEST FROM HAITI.”

Posted by: drivl | January 15, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

forget it, ddawd. all intelligent life is gone.

Posted by: drindl | January 15, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

You can't blame Coakley for the latest DNC mishap:

The put up a negative add about Scott Brown with the world trade center in the background with the meme "GREED". How incredibly out of touch are you that you use the place where 2700 Americans (and foreigners) died in your ad as a reference to greed?

This was the national party, not the Coakley campaign.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | January 15, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

But fun comments section, that's for sure. I figured I'd actually have something interesting to read.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 15, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Voters remember one thing. If you are in the top 5% financially vote republican and if you are in the bottom 95% then vote for a democrat. The republicans and their backing insurance companies are spending almost two million dollars a week to fight health reform. The repubs love the kick-back money and could care less what happens to anyone making less than a million a year.

Posted by: SWAMPYPD
-------------------------------------------
Pelosi, Kerry, Edwards,et al, vote R?????

Posted by: leapin | January 15, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Kind of a riduclous meme, that Democrats shouldn't even be having to campaign for the seat.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 15, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

---

Unfortunately, it's one that Coakley seemed to have bought into. I have to say that if there is any state that should hold a referendum on the health care package, Massachusetts is the appropriate one.

I see that Zouk has a new handle. I guess Moonbat got banned.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 15, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Kind of a riduclous meme, that Democrats shouldn't even be having to campaign for the seat.

Posted by: DDAWD
----------------------------------------
Not ridiculous for t-h-i-s seat. The one occupied for decades when the barstool wasn't being used.

Posted by: leapin | January 15, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Voters remember one thing. If you are in the top 5% financially vote republican and if you are in the bottom 95% then vote for a democrat. The republicans and their backing insurance companies are spending almost two million dollars a week to fight health reform. The repubs love the kick-back money and could care less what happens to anyone making less than a million a year.

Posted by: SWAMPYPD | January 15, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Republican candidate and state Sen. Scott Brown doesn't want President Obama to come to Massachusetts to campaign for his opponent, state Attorney General Martha Coakley.
Posted by: drindl

President Obama will not be campaigning with the Democratic candidate in the Massachusetts Senate race, but he has recorded a message for Martha Coakley, asking his supporters to volunteer, knock on doors, text and tweet to help her win the special election on Tuesday.

Posted by: leapin | January 15, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"There's some wheat amongst the chaff in today's comments. Any poll having Brown up (with the usual caveats) is a shocker. For those on the left, it's a fact that Clinton is coming up there and that national organizations are dumping in money. If this were a walkaway for Coakley, that wouldn't be happening. You can bet that internal polling is worrisome.

I would suggest that calling for another poster to be banned should in itself be a banning offense. Oh, wait. That now includes me. Whoops!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade"


Essentially, the Republicans are trying to move the goalposts such that if Coackley has to even campaign for the seat, it's a win for the Republicans. If she gets endorsements from Obama or Clinton, that shows they are scared. If she makes a speech, that shows they are scared, if Democrats are raising money for the campaign, that shows they are scared.

Kind of a riduclous meme, that Democrats shouldn't even be having to campaign for the seat.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 15, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

open the floodgates of lunacy

Posted by: drivl | January 15, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

'Yesterday, Fox News host Glenn Beck interviewed newly minted Fox analyst Sarah Palin from a spot in Lower Manhattan overlooking the Statue of Liberty
Posted by: drindl
------------------------------------------
What's your news source? Lefty blogs don't count.

Posted by: leapin | January 15, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"Republican candidate and state Sen. Scott Brown doesn't want President Obama to come to Massachusetts to campaign for his opponent, state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

"He should stay away and let Martha and I discuss the issues one on one," Brown told the Boston Herald this week. "The machine is coming out of the woodwork to get her elected. They're bringing in outsiders, and we don't need them."

what's the matter, little _sucker, scared?

Posted by: drindl | January 15, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday, soon after the devastating 7.0 magnitude earthquake hit much of Haiti, Rush Limbaugh took the opportunity to attack President Obama, saying the White House will “use this to burnish their…credibility with the black community — the both the light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country.” But televangelist Pat Robertson took it one step futher, saying the earthquake happened because Haitians “swore a pact with the devil.” Today on his Fox Business show, Don Imus went after Limbaugh. “One would think that you could just wait a few days – Rush – until you know you can run your fat mouth about it then,” he said. But Imus had some particularly harsh words for Robertson:

IMUS: You know, I’m not sure whether sometimes I’m ambivalent about whether I support the death penalty or not. I guess I do if I didn’t have to do it, but in his case, I’d pull the switch on him myself. I mean he should be put to sleep. How does that contribute anything? It’s insanity.

Posted by: drindl | January 15, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

In June 2009, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) announced at a press conference that in the previous year he had “violated the vows” of his marriage by carrying on an affair with one of his campaign staffers, who was married to one of his Senate staffers. It was later revealed that Ensign had his parents pay the couple $96,000 and arranged for his former legislative assistant, Doug Hampton, “to join a political consulting firm and lined up several donors as his lobbying clients.” Ensign and his staff then “repeatedly intervened on the companies’ behalf with federal agencies, often after urging from Mr. Hampton.”

In an interview with RNC Chairman Michael Steele taped this week for “Face to Face With Jon Ralston,” Ralston asked Steele if he would be “outraged” if “a Democratic senator had an affair with a staffer, had his parents pay her off, fired both her and her husband who worked for him and then tried to get the husband jobs.” First, Steele claimed he didn’t know who Ralston was talking about. But when Ralston said it was Ensign, Steele said it didn’t have an “opinion” on it because he “wasn’t chairman of the party at the time all that took place”:

STEELE: I don’t know. Who is, who is the individual you’re talking about?

RALSTON: The individual happens to be John Ensign. I was just putting the shoe on the other foot. You haven’t said anything about John Ensign because he’s one of yours. You’re Mr. Double Standard.

STEELE: Really?

RALSTON: You are.

STEELE: Is that how you take that?

RALSTON: I’m asking ya.

STEELE: I wasn’t chairman of the party at the time all that took place so I have no opinion on it.

RALSTON: What are you talking about? It took place last year.

STEELE: I wasn’t chairman of the party.


Posted by: drindl | January 15, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

'Yesterday, Fox News host Glenn Beck interviewed newly minted Fox analyst Sarah Palin from a spot in Lower Manhattan overlooking the Statue of Liberty. On his radio show this morning, Beck revealed that Palin was “preparing” for the interview by using her BlackBerry to look up trivial facts about the monument, like what various architectural features represented. Apparently wary of being embarrassed in an interview yet again for her lack of knowledge, Palin assumed Beck would quiz her. Even after Beck assured her he was not trying to stump her — like all of her recent interviewers, Beck is sympathetic to Palin — she began googling Ellis Island, which was also visible in the background of the shot:

BECK: She said, ‘I’m just preparing now.’ And I said, ‘What do you mean?’ And she held up her BlackBerry, and she said, ‘Oh I, I’m wondering why you have me here at the Statue of Liberty.’ And I said, ‘Cause it’s a symbol of trust.’ … And she said, ‘So you’re not going to ask me about the 25 windows?’ And I said, ‘The 25 windows? What are you talking about the 25 windows?’ She said, ‘The 25 windows, come on, don’t play with me. 25 windows, they stand for the different minerals.’ And I said, ‘You could be making that up right now, I have no idea.’ [...]

And she said, ‘So the seven points?’ And I said, ‘What points?’ She said, ‘The ones on her hand. You know the crown.’ … And I said, ‘No, we’re not going down that road.’ And she just looked at me like, ‘Um hm.’

And I turned around and I walked out for a minute and I come back and she’s still Googling. Now she’s googling, now she’s googling Ellis Island. Her shields were so high.'

Posted by: drindl | January 15, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

This is a huge development, as the race now looks to be Brown's. Last minute endorsements have not fueled victory very ofter as of late. Examples: US Sen. Domenice endorsing US Rep. Heather Wilson in a primary, and Wilson losing the primary to Steve Pearce in NM. Obama's stumping in NJ in November for Jon Corzine, as he lost the Governor's race to Republican Chris Christie. A Republican wave is here and Scott Brown looks as if he will ride it to victory. That will end the Democrat's super majority and will kill the idea of socialized medicine in this country.

Posted by: reason5 | January 15, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

NOW Obama is beginning to see how difficult these things are with the bottlenecks and other problems encountered - so maybe Bush deserves a different review on New Orleans when this is all over.

Posted by: 37thand0street
------------------------------------------
Exactly. And all the flowery language in the world isn’t going to change the difficult logistics to address a disaster.

Posted by: leapin | January 15, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

DrainYou


First of all, I take issue with your desire to take partisan benefit from a horrible natural disaster in which thousands of people died.


That alone makes you sick.


Next, nothing will damage America more than the perception of weakness around the world - this you will not understand until something really bad happens, because you are so convinced you are right.


Finally, you forget about what President Bush did in the tsunami disaster. Like it never happened - and like Obama is the only one to respond to a disaster.

NOW Obama is beginning to see how difficult these things are with the bottlenecks and other problems encountered - so maybe Bush deserves a different review on New Orleans when this is all over.


Again, take your partisanship and stuff it.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Clearly drindl is cared for by others.

Posted by: drivl | January 15, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

drindl


Stop harassing other posters. It is pretty simple. You are a little child.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

qlangley


You make some good points on turn-out.


One additional factor:


For people to actually be motivated to go to the polls, they have to think that their candidate has some chance, no matter how remote - Scott Brown this week has achieved "Viability" - people believe he can win if enough people come out.


That is important.


The major factor here is Obama - Obama has been overplaying his hand in a way that angers people. Obama made all sorts of commitments to the American people that he would be bipartisan - that he would rise above the partisan differences in Washington.


THAT means it is on Obama to make the bipartisanship happen - Obama has to go out of his way.


THAT also means that Obama commited to a health care plan that the Republicans can agree with - not to hold the bill hostage to the Republicans - but Obama commitment to bipartisanship committed Obama to a bill which is a COMPROMISE NOT A BILL THAT ONLY DEMOCRATS WANT.


This is a fundamental breach of trust that Obama has made with the American people.


And it is not a breach with the Republicans - it is a breach with the people who voted for him.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I don't think that drindl has enough brains to figure out that when she calls her local PD, they will laugh at her.

kook: Hello police, some guy on the Internet made me feel bad.

cop: what do you want us to do maam?

kook: arrest him and spank him hard.

Cop:where does he live?

kook: how should I know, 37th and O street I think

cop: that is out of our jursidiction. what is his name?

Kook: 37th and O street or zouk or moonbat or something

cop: lady I'm calling the mental institute

Kook: I'm calling from there

Posted by: drivl | January 15, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Marth Coakley yesterday said that Catholics "should not work in emergency rooms"


This election keeps on coming.

It is unbelievable.

Posted by: 37thand0street
----------------------------------
One of Alinsky's rules is that "You must polarize to organize".

Obama is creating the statist caste society. You have different rights and rules if you are Catholic, or from Nebraska, or belong to a union. What's next from this man-made disaster of an administration?

Posted by: leapin | January 15, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I don't want to hear what YOU have to say to me. Do not ever address me again. Let me be clear. Do not make any attempts to find me, to call me, to contact me in any way, or I will call the police.

Posted by: drindl | January 15, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

drindl is desperate to be offended and stalked. it will not rest until she gathers that sort of attention.

I assume the budsman is getting sick of her daily nagging. But she certainly has pantywaist cilizza spooked. she almost got him fired over that hillary stunt last year.

Posted by: drivl | January 15, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

drindl


You can dish it out all the time, but you don't want to hear what people want to say to you, is that correct??


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

Marth Coakley yesterday said that Catholics "should not work in emergency rooms"


This election keeps on coming.


It is unbelievable.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

drindl


Well then stop harassing other posters

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

CHRIS CILLIZZA -- I CONSIDER THIS A THREAT.

If it goes one step further, I think the police can be called. Do you suppose you might ask WaPo management for guidance on this?

I have contacted the Ombudsman. This person, as you can tell by their constant presence here, is dangerously obsessive.

...................................................
drindl


Can I have your phone number and address - I would like to tell you directly what I think about you.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 11:22 AM

Posted by: drindl | January 15, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Headquarters...we possibly have a neocom statist down..repeat..neocom statist down...do you read me...need additional ACORN reinforcements..backup unit of panthers...please advise frequency patch to Sheriff Joe

Posted by: leapin | January 15, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

drindl


Can I have your phone number and address - I would like to tell you directly what I think about you.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

There's some wheat amongst the chaff in today's comments. Any poll having Brown up (with the usual caveats) is a shocker. For those on the left, it's a fact that Clinton is coming up there and that national organizations are dumping in money. If this were a walkaway for Coakley, that wouldn't be happening. You can bet that internal polling is worrisome.

I would suggest that calling for another poster to be banned should in itself be a banning offense. Oh, wait. That now includes me. Whoops!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 15, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

sewage here. waste of time.

Posted by: drindl | January 15, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

qlangley


You make some good points on turn-out.


One additional factor:


For people to actually be motivated to go to the polls, they have to think that their candidate has some chance, no matter how remote - Scott Brown this week has achieved "Viability" - people believe he can win if enough people come out.


That is important.


The major factor here is Obama - Obama has been overplaying his hand in a way that angers people. Obama made all sorts of commitments to the American people that he would be bipartisan - that he would rise above the partisan differences in Washington.


THAT means it is on Obama to make the bipartisanship happen - Obama has to go out of his way.


THAT also means that Obama commited to a health care plan that the Republicans can agree with - not to hold the bill hostage to the Republicans - but Obama commitment to bipartisanship committed Obama to a bill which is a COMPROMISE NOT A BILL THAT ONLY DEMOCRATS WANT.


This is a fundamental breach of trust that Obama has made with the American people.


And it is not a breach with the Republicans - it is a breach with the people who voted for him.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse


DrainYou


First of all, I take issue with your desire to take partisan benefit from a horrible natural disaster in which thousands of people died.


That alone makes you sick.


Next, nothing will damage America more than the perception of weakness around the world - this you will not understand until something really bad happens, because you are so convinced you are right.

Finally, you forget about what President Bush did in the tsunami disaster. Like it never happened - and like Obama is the only one to respond to a disaster. NOW Obama is beginning to see how difficult these things are with the bottlenecks and other problems encountered - so many Bush will get a different review on New Orleans when this is all over.


Again, take your partisanship and stuff it.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Obama broke his campaign promises - those were promises made to the democrats and the people who voted for him - those are the people that Obama is losing.


The analysis presented below makes sense except for one thing.


Democrats are going to vote for Brown too.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Barry is still too busy choosing a church to make it all the way up to boston. He was also spied polishing his trophies and digging around for some additional bribe money for his union owners. Let's raid the bank bonuses, forget about freddie and fannie along the way.

Unless he can ram this health care monster through before the voice of the people (from ultra liberal Mass no less) is heard on tuesday and the Senators delayed seating, conjured from liberal neccesity, he will be branded the ultimate failure of a President, with lame duck status in his first year.

Jimmah must be pleased to lose his place as worst ever.

Posted by: drivl | January 15, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

seemstome and privacy3


Did you know that Scott Brown's daughter was on American Idol?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

If mirabile dictu Scott Brown should win
'Twould defy Democratic efforts at spin
And cast B. H. Obama as "villain"
Who's receiving top billing
As actor responsible for the shape that we're in.

Posted by: Gonzage1 | January 15, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

"When Brown is elected in 2012, it will be the beginning of the end of the age of Obama. I live in California, so there is hope that Boxer could go in November. The sun is starting to shine again."

-Posted by: kenpasadena

Yes, 2012 will definitely see the beginning of the end of the age of Obama. By the end of that year, he'll be re-elected to his second - and final - term as President.

Posted by: Breandan_from_Ireland | January 15, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

i see zoukie is playing name changies again. he changes his name as often as his diaper.

Posted by: drindl | January 15, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

37/0 reminds me of the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland running around screaming "Off with his head!" "Off with his head!"

Posted by: drindl | January 15, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Dr K nails it in the intelligent section of this paper today.

Posted by: drivl | January 15, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

If the Massachusetts voters can tear their eyes away from American Idol long enough they will realize that democratic leadership has made them the great state that they are today.

Posted by: seemstome | January 15, 2010 10:38 AM


Hey Buddy, maybe you should start dating broadwayjoe.

Posted by: privacy3 | January 15, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse


Republicans, after eight years of molesting the the country, are pointing fingers at the democrats and crying rape. They are no longer the party of big business because they have miraculously changed in one year. They have reformed. They will help us take our country back from the special interests in Washington.
Republicans will fix the economy that they wrecked and make our voices heard over their corporate bosses. After all, they claim there is little difference between democrats and republicans. But if this is the case why are they so desperately hell bent to defeat them?
If they are so much the people's voice, why have they always been against social security? Against Medicare? Why are they against people getting basic health care?
If the Massachusetts voters can tear their eyes away from American Idol long enough they will realize that democratic leadership has made them the great state that they are today.

Posted by: seemstome | January 15, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Obama, Reid, Pelosi parody song

Washington Hillbillies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR75PodzQgo

Posted by: JGates1 | January 15, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

When Brown is elected in 2012, it will be the beginning of the end of the age of Obama. I live in California, so there is hope that Boxer could go in November. The sun is starting to shine again.

Posted by: kenpasadena | January 15, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Broad____joe


Sorry, but the link you offer is dated January 10 - and the poll you are referring to was taken January 2 - 6.

YOU ARE A LIAR.

Coakley's lead is not growing, it is shrinking from the numbers you cite.


YOU SHOULD BE BANNED.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Broad____joe


Sorry, but the link you offer is dated January 10 - and the poll you are referring to was taken January 2 - 6.

YOU ARE A LIAR.

Coakley's lead is not growing, it is shrinking from the numbers you cite.


YOU SHOULD BE BANNED.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

After sixty years of republican opposition to universal health care it would be criminal for the democrats to let the people down during this historic opportunity. They must get the job done now or go down in defeat. There will be no excuses for failure.
Evil and greed are never easy to overcome but we are so close. Now is the time for the White House to fight fire with fire. Beat the republican devil at his own game.

Posted by: seemstome | January 15, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

I mean what do you expect her to do stand in the cold and shake hands outside Fenway? Who's got time for that when there are special interest fund raisers in DC that have to be attended.

Posted by: RobT1 | January 15, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

"Brown has long been best known in Massachusetts as a former model who once posed naked in Cosmopolitan magazine, as well as the father of an "American Idol" contestant." Well G-dam, no wonder he is pulling ahead. With those qualifications and the obstructionist mentality of conservative voters, he is a shoe in. Screw health care reform, his family was on American Idol, for God,s sake.
Move over Lieberman, here comes the REAL deciding vote in thwarting the will of the duly elected majority in the senate.

Posted by: seemstome | January 15, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Chris there are three States out of 50 with almost all of there people insured & Mass has more of them insured then any other State... That was done under a Republican Govenor & the other two under Democrats. (So much for that issue)

As for everything else, the wars, economy & such there is not a hell of a lot that separates the two parties... They both take billions from BIG companies, they both work more for the very rich then for the regular people, they are both on the take & in the pocket of big health, pharma, banks, defense & so on....

The bottom line is maybe this Country needs more years of moving towards a 3rd world status, maybe this Country needs to have it's ignorant people who keep voting for these criminals lose more of there future & then MAYBE just maybe they will wake up & demand honest people be elected rather tah these money hungry crooks...

Posted by: MrReal | January 15, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: privacy3 | January 15, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

It's not that Massachusetts objects to Democratic policies, it's a matter of frustration that the Dems aren't getting more accomplished. Rather than recognizing that this is due to Republican obstruction, Massachusetts may well cut off its nose to spite its face by electing Brown.

Massachusetts Dems need to get this video circulated. It shows Brown at a Tea Party rally, proving that he lied when he claimed not to know about the Tea Party movement:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/14/824925/-MA-Sen:-Video-exposes-Browns-false-tea-party-claim

Posted by: bamccampbell | January 15, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Hoops11, I just received an email from my friend Fred in
southB. He referenced the same ad. It must be a good 'un.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 15, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

I am an independent voter from Pennsylvania. I go to school in Boston, and watching the Coakley / Brown race play out has been fascinating. Up till this morning, I never took the idea of Brown winning seriously. However, regardless of your political affliation, you have to admit that the Brown campagin has been stellar. I think his new ad trying to put himself above an attack ad just might seal the deal.

Posted by: Hoops11 | January 15, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

jahoby writes
"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."


Lets go with those numbers. Combined with the Suffolk numbers for voter turnout (45 I, 39 D, 15 R), Coakley wins. Here's the math: if Brown gets 65% of the I vote, that's 30 of the 45 points in the Suffolk voter model. 15+30 = 45. Coakley gets 15 pts of I votes, plus 39 for Ds = 54% of the vote. Brown goes down.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 15, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

BJ is our own local Baghdad Bob. Facts are an inconvenient nusiance.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 15, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

@3_":

So now it's whether Brown exceeds 36% not whether he wins on Tuesday? LOL. Lowering the bar, 3__?

This is Scozzafava versus Doug Hoffman all over again. It'll be the same result. Closer than it should be (because of the free publicity generated from pro-Brown polls that do not comply with journalistic standards), but in the end, same result.

Welcome to D.C., Senator Coakley.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 15, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe writes
"So the simple journalist question is: Did the Fix check first to see whether the methodology of this new "poll"--which is wildly out of line with two recent mainstream compliant polls."


I think to dismiss the polls out of hand for being robopolls is premature. Sure, there are strong opinions about their validity vs live-caller polls. The NYT comes down strongly on one side; but it is a mistake to assume their position is the only valid one. What woulb be more interesting, to me anyway, is if el Fix would get the Post pollster to pontificate on these results and perhaps enlighten us on the challenges in polling for a special election; i.e. how do they design a likely voter model? As Mark in Austin asks, is it plausible that 45% of the MA electorate is independent? Is that based on last year's presidential poll; and if so is it a plausible model for a special election? Even if the poll is flawed, there are things to be learned from it. We'll be better informed if we can find out how the poll is flawed, rather than just dismissing it for being not-to-our-liking.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 15, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

"It's not Kennedy's seat, it's his barstool!"

Posted by: jahoby | January 15, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

The other day in Turkey, villagers in a small town were shocked when a donkey gave birth to a calf with a human face. Apparently broadwayjoe has a lot of explaining to do.

Posted by: jahoby | January 15, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Please refrain from talking about ethics in the liberal context.

Three years ago nanny peloony promised to drain the swamp of corruption. There has not been a single action taken since.

Conclusion. Either everyone in congress was and is already clean as a whistle or ninny has no intention of doing anything to her crooked committee chairs.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 15, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Chris you forgot to mention:

"It's not the Kennedy seat, it's the peoples' seat,"


THAT is what Scott Brown said in the debate - the Coakley side is now running commercials which take Scott Brown's lines.

Can it be more of a disaster ???


This race is about Obama - any votes that Brown gets above 36% is a measure of that.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 15, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Polls don't matter in this race. Just drive around the neighborhoods up here. The signs for Brown are everywhere. For every ten Brown signs there might be one Coakley sign.

Posted by: privacy3 | January 15, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

complies with commonly accepted journalistic standards :

translation into English- shameless praise for all things liberal.

The polls showing Obama has fallen faster than a meteorite does not comply with journalistic standards.

Hurry libs. You got to pass that law before anybody reads it. Preferably in the middle if the night behind closed doors.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 15, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

The arrogant, stupid liberals are getting exactly what they deserve.

Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | January 15, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Indeed. Anyone who equates the NYT with journalistic standards overdosed on the koolaid a long time ago. And anyone who equates 'standards' of polling with the WP is apparently oblivious to the Post's miserable (and I mean miserable) polling performance during the Va governors race. The Post's own polls consistently underestimated (by a statistically unacceptable 7-8 point margin of error) McDonnell's edge over Deeds. But that wasn't the worst of it. In addition to its own polls being inaccurate (while relying on the supposedly vaunted standards that allegedly decide accuracy for the rest of us), they then turned around and actively poo-pooed other polls that actually had a far better grasp of the true state of things. The resulting credibility gap was and is wide and deep. Entrusting 'journalistic standards' of polling to the NYT and WP is like a company entrusting its ethics training to Abramoff or Madoff.

Posted by: mbcnewspaper | January 15, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Yes, that is an accurate makeup of the voter registration. Most NE states have about 50% registered independent. However, the number of independents who show up to vote shrinks. The problem with the Suffolk sample size is that 26% of the sample didn't even know when the election was. I've got to seriously doubt the credibility of this poll. Especially when there are still polls coming out that show Coakly way ahead.

Posted by: gpsbus | January 15, 2010 8:19 AM
___________
Co-sign, bus. Given the demographics and past voting patterns in the district, we find the results not credible.

The one major poll that actually complies with commonly accepted journalistic standards shows Coakley up 15.

"Democrat Martha Coakley, buoyed by her durable statewide popularity, enjoys a solid, 15-percentage-point lead over Republican rival Scott Brown as the race for US Senate enters the homestretch, according to a new Boston Globe poll of likely voters.

Half of voters surveyed said they would pick Coakley, the attorney general, if the election were held today, compared with 35 percent who would pick Brown. Nine percent were undecided, and a third candidate in the race, independent Joseph L. Kennedy, received 5 percent.

Coakley’s lead grows to 17 points - 53 percent to 36 percent - when undecideds leaning toward a candidate are included in the tally. The results indicate that Brown has a steep hill to climb to pull off an upset in the Jan. 19 election. Indeed, the poll indicated that nearly two-thirds of Brown’s supporters believe Coakley will win."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/10/senate_poll_coakley_up_15_points/


Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 15, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

For those of you who think the Mass senate race will be close, check out this article. Some very interesting information in it suggests that it won't be close at all. Brown will trounce Coakley.

http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2010/01/14/ma-senate-race-poll-scott-brown-trounces-martha-coakley

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 14, 2010 10:09 PM


Thanks Suzy. Any way you look at it, the dems are in for a huge defeat. Last November got the ball rolling in VA and NJ. It's turned into a huge snowball heading for all the Obama goons.

Posted by: privacy3 | January 15, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe's comment has been removed due to lack of intellegence. Please wait three minutes to resubmit.

Posted by: jahoby | January 15, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

The Research 2000 poll showed Coakley up 8%. It was briefly mentioned at the end of a post yesterday. This Suffolk poll shows Brown up 4%. It gets top billing in the Morning Fix. As an added bonus, CC doesn't mention that the Suffolk poll had a margin of error of 4.4%, higher than Brown's supposed lead.

I'm not saying that CC is biased in favor of Brown, but...well, I can't figure out how to end this sentence.

Posted by: Blarg | January 15, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Republican Scott Brown, who has tapped into widespread anger over health care reforms and the economy, surged to within two percentage points of Democrat Martha Coakley in the latest polling. The Rothenberg Political Report and the Cook Political Report, the two leading political handicapping services, shifted the race to the "tossup" category - in a state that hasn't sent a Republican to Congress since 1994 or to the Senate since 1972.
Massachusetts Republican Party spokeswoman Tarah Donoghue said the Coakley campaign was stooping to "desperate and dirty campaign tactics" as the race tightened.

Posted by: jahoby | January 15, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

People of Massachuttes :
Are you aware that choosing Coakley you send her to Washington to to vote for irational spending ,masive taxation ,closed doors decisions, enormous deficit, digusting briberies,broken promises, unbelievable machinations and who knows about other paranoic decisions ?.

Posted by: yonasolo | January 15, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse


obama - olympics : loser
obama - NJ governor : loser
obama - VA governor : loser
obama - MA senator : loser

Posted by: ItsOver2 | January 15, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

brodwayjoe:
Rothenberg Political Report: “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.”
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.
How can a Massachusetts Senate candidate possibly offend 39 percent of voters in her state? If it's Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley, she would tell devout Catholics “not to bother working in an emergency room…” Brilliant strategist, ain’t she?
"The closeness of the race reflects deep voter dissatisfaction with how the president and the congressional majority are dealing with vital matters," including healthcare and the war on terror, said Mark Landy, a political science professor at Boston College.

Posted by: jahoby | January 15, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

538 takes the Suffolk Poll more seriously than you do, BWJ. I think a better metric for polling is statistical verity, not journalistic acceptance. Nate Silver concludes that Cloakley is in big trouble and the race is too close to call.

Andy and gpsbus, I thank you for your varying takes on the high number of Indies. One possibility is that when the sample is corrected for those responding they are likely to vote, high numbers of Indies say they will, compared to party loyalists.

From what I have read, these are both second rate candidates, in the sense of being potential statesmen.
Thus it is possible that agenda driven voters will dominate, as neither of these folks has a following, or a rabid group of detractors.

That Suffolk Poll is worth reading. Most polled favor MA health care but most say MA cannot afford it. It is full of apparent contradictions like that. Makes it seem likely to reflect the confusion of real people, IMHO.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 15, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Another neo-fascist in the Senate? How much more sabotage can our country take from the rabid right? Will our national nightmare ever end? 140 years of right-wing failure and the Greatest Depression has just barely begun. Its enough to make a sane man flee to France..

Posted by: BigTrees | January 15, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Another neo-fascist in the Senate? How much more sabotage can our country take from the rabid right? Will our national nightmare evr end? 140 years of right-wing failure and the Greatest Depression has just barely begun. Its enough to make a sane man flee to France..

Posted by: BigTrees | January 15, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

"Any poll that stumbles on the truth and illuminates the weakness of liberals can't measure up to the NYSlimes standards. Or koo koo liberals.
....

Posted by: Mooned | January 15, 2010 8:29 AM"
___________
mooned, guess you missed the recent politico.com article that, in the view of many, effectively ended Rasmussen's reputation as a legitimate source of polling information. Bizarre poll questions and biased samplings make for totally bogus polls.

Excerpt:

"Democratic pollster Mark Mellman believes Rasmussen designs its polling questions to elicit negative responses about Obama and Democrats — a sentiment that is widely shared in the liberal blogosphere.


“I think they write their questions in a way that supports a conservative interpretation of the world,” said Mellman. “In general, they tend to be among the worst polls for Democrats, and they phrase questions in ways that elicit less support for the Democratic point of view.”"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31047_Page2.html

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 15, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Do I sense a little disbelief from our liberal friends here? Seems quite similar to the typical main-stream media response about the economy "Unemployment surprisingly high...surprisingly low numbers in retail sales last quarter..." etc., etc.
Party of Denial:
“…It is noted that the above "article" does not indicate whether this new poll met the journalistic standards…”
“…While the Brown surge is remarkable, it is not surprising…”
“…So the simple journalist question is: Did the Fix check first to see whether the methodology of this new "poll"--met commonly accepted journalistic standards…”
“…I've got to seriously doubt the credibility of this poll…”
“…I am curious why CC didn't mention the other poll that came out today showing Coakley leading by 8%...”
“…Does anyone really think those crooked machine pols in mass will allow a fair count?...”
“…This is all just political hype and newspapers trying to sell their wares…”

Posted by: jahoby | January 15, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse


HAITI TRAGEDY DEFLECTS MEDIA ATTENTION FROM EXPOSURE
OF U.S. GOV'T MICROWAVE/LASER CELL TOWER TORTURE,
IMPAIRMENT OF THOUSANDS OF 'TARGETED' CITIZENS

• CBS News Used to Cover Up Silent, Invisible High-Tech Attack System Used to Persecute Targeted "Dissidents" and "Undsirables"

• A gov't-wide cover up that makes Watergate look like just another black bag job

• "It's President Obama's 'Gestapo USA' Now" -- Veteran journalist/victim

See: Poynter.org (Journalism groups -- Reporting): "U.S. Uses CBS News..." "U.S. Silently Tortures Americans with Cell Tower Microwaves" and "Gestapo USA: Fed-Funded Vigilante Network Terrorizes America"

http://www.poynter.org/subject.asp?id=2

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
nowpublic.com/world/u-s-govt-uses-cbs-news-cover-microwave-cell-tower-torture
nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 15, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

The most glaring problem for Democrats during their electoral struggles has been the complete weakness of their candidates.
---------------
It's an entire party that's based on tax, spend, secrecy and killing babies. Their strongest presidential candidates were an adulter cheating on his cancer-riddled wife and a gimmick, light skinned negro. This is the end of the party.

Posted by: ItsOver2 | January 15, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

There are many things the Democratic party can take for granted but there are two which are always at the top of the list - the African-American vote and the Massachusetts vote.

This is all just political hype and newspapers trying to sell their wares.

Posted by: magellan1 | January 15, 2010 7:22 AM
___________

Co-sign. The legit polls say Coakley is up by at least 8, and those results comport with the Coakley-friendly demographics and prior voting patterns for the district.

My understanding is there have been two polls that comply with journalistic standards: the Boston Globe poll showed Coakley up by 15, and the Research 2000 poll had her up by 8. The other polls that said the race is close were all discredited by the New York Times as bogus. But these bogus polls achieved their purpose, i.e., they garnered millions of dollars worth of undeserved free publicity from the media, including this blog. And that free publicity will, sadly, move the needle somewhat.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 15, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Any poll that stumbles on the truth and illuminates the weakness of liberals can't measure up to the NYSlimes standards. Or koo koo liberals.

For the record, rasmussen had the most accurate prediction in the last election. And the one before.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 15, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

While the Brown surge is remarkable, it is not surprising. From blogs to discussions at work, there is a fear of the direction Congress is taking our country. Even my more liberal employees have a much more gaurded view of the Democrats agenda. In 50 years, the history books will speak of a time when dogma within the Democrats party drove a lockstep march right over the cliff. But with Americans, this really isn't about party anymore. Because neither has distinguished themselves in the last 8 years. It is about a sense that this Congress is ignoring their employers and doing what ever they want; to the detriment of our freedoms. And my kids kids will read about it in their history books.

Posted by: donchew1 | January 15, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

As a general principle, cherry picking polls to influence active political races is beneath any platform sponsored by the Washington Post.

It is noted that the above "article" does not indicate whether this new poll met the journalistic standards observed by mjaor newspapers like the New York Times and... the Washington Post.

Without that critical threshold fact check, this "article" about a poll of unknown methodology and heritage could be viewed as trying to influence opinion about the race rather than measuring it.

It is important to point out that the previous polls showing Brown tied with Coakley, including the first Rasmussen poll that started the whole Brown-is-gaining narrative, were ALL discredited by the New York Times as violating journalistic standards:

"Some of those polls do not meet the standards of The New York Times and other news organizations because they relied on automated telephone calls. But they have energized the Brown campaign and brought it new support, not least from the antitax Tea Party movement and other conservative groups."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/us/politics/14massachusetts.html?hpw

"The poll that suggested Ms. Coakley’s lead was narrowing, which was conducted by Rasmussen Reports and does not meet the polling standards of The New York Times because it relied on automated telephone calls, suggested Mr. Brown had strikingly strong support among independent voters. But most of them are unlikely to come out for a special election at an odd time of year, Ms. Marsh said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/us/politics/08massachusetts.html?hp

So the simple journalist question is: Did the Fix check first to see whether the methodology of this new "poll"--which is wildly out of line with two recent mainstream compliant polls (showing Coakley up by 15 and 8 respectively)--met commonly accepted journalistic standards, as the New York Times (and we hope the Post) routinely does?


Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 15, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Yes, that is an accurate makeup of the voter registration. Most NE states have about 50% registered independent. However, the number of independents who show up to vote shrinks. The problem with the Suffolk sample size is that 26% of the sample didn't even know when the election was. I've got to seriously doubt the credibility of this poll. Especially when there are still polls coming out that show Coakly way ahead.

Posted by: gpsbus | January 15, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

So even democrats are looking for a way to reverse the lies and ineptitude of the messiah. This is certainly one method of enforcing bipartisanship and perhaps transparency in the corrupt Obama administration.

Will national liberals get the message or will the Titanic increase it's speed?

Posted by: Moonbat | January 15, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

I am somewhat curious on how the deal that the Obama administration reached with the unions on the healthcare plan may effect this election. There is a large amount organized labor in Massachusetts and this deal may be what the leaders of those unions needed to bring out their members in full force. I wouldnt' underestimate the role that Unions could play in this race since they are such an organized voting block.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 15, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Scott Brown is riding a wave. It could break before it hits shore, or, it could crash through the Democratic seawall of state politics and send him all the way to the U.S. Senate.

Our exclusive 7NEWS-Suffolk University Poll shows Brown, with 50%, in front of Coakley with 46%. Independent Joe Kennedy gets 3% and just 1% is still undecided.

How quickly has this race turned around?

In November, Coakley was beating Brown by 31 percentage points. Now, Brown is up by 4% -- a change of 35% in two months.

Posted by: charlietuna666 | January 15, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

The latest robopoll shows Brown up by 15 points--and I believe it. Five of my children were born in Massachusetts, and I've been watching the comments on the Boston Globe articles on this race. I've never seen anything like it--no, wait, I have seen one thing to match it: the 2004 Red Sox.

Go, Scott, go!

Posted by: SWSomerville | January 15, 2010 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Mark to answer your question, no. The poll that CC quotes specifically tried to get that breakdown.
"The poll surveyed a carefully partitioned electorate meant to match voter turnout: 39 percent Democrat, 15 percent Republican and 45 percent unenrolled."

I am curious why CC didn't mention the other poll that came out today showing Coakley leading by 8%. On top of that the Suffolk poll didn't have an option for undecided. Also the poll only had 8% of their responses from people in Boston, which doesnt jibe right with the regular turnout in the state.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 15, 2010 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone really think those crooked machine pols in mass will allow a fair count?

Posted by: Moonbat | January 15, 2010 7:47 AM | Report abuse

The most glaring problem for Democrats during their electoral struggles has been the complete weakness of their candidates. Coakley is another one who cannot seem to go a day without making devastating mistakes in campaigning, messaging, etc.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | January 15, 2010 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Looking at the Suffolk cross-tabs, according to #S2, 45% of those polled were not registered as "D" or "R". 39% were "D" and 15% were "R". A TX poll would show 40% I
and be an accurate reflection. Is this true in MA?

This was not the x-section for the "Boston Globe's' poll.
Which x-section is accurate?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 15, 2010 7:43 AM | Report abuse

There are many things the Democratic party can take for granted but there are two which are always at the top of the list - the African-American vote and the Massachusetts vote.

This is all just political hype and newspapers trying to sell their wares.

Posted by: magellan1 | January 15, 2010 7:22 AM | Report abuse

Even for Democrats, her statement that she did not want to stand outside the ballpark park to shake hands, sounded too arrogant. She believes that she is entitled to the votes because of her party affiliation. Citizens do not want to be taken as fools. Even registered democrats.

Posted by: philly3 | January 15, 2010 7:06 AM | Report abuse

"A new Suffolk University poll shows state Sen. Scott Brown (R) has surged to a 50 percent to 46 percent lead over state Attorney General Martha Coakley with four days left in the Massachusetts Senate special election."

WOW.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 15, 2010 7:00 AM | Report abuse

What do you want to bet that the Coakley crew will be flying Acorn volunteers in to Mass. from Chicago? What's a little voter fraud among friends?

Posted by: Linda7 | January 15, 2010 6:53 AM | Report abuse


God Bless Senator Scott Brown!!!

Posted by: ItsOver2 | January 15, 2010 6:47 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company