Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Can nationalizing the special election save Martha Coakley?

In less than 24 hours, former President Bill Clinton -- a beloved figure within the Democratic base -- will appear with state Attorney General Martha Coakley in hopes of resurrecting her flagging bid to replace the late Ted Kennedy in a special election set for Tuesday.

Clinton's appearance in the state is the latest in a series of moves by Democrats to turn the race into a referendum on the two national parties and their respective issue agendas.

Ads being paid for by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee attack state Sen. Scott Brown for wanting to be "the deciding vote to kill Ted Kennedy's [health care] legislation", and a commercial paid for the Service Employees International Union seeks to link Brown to the controversial former governor of Alaska Sarah Palin (R).

The strategic play by Democrats is a simple one. The Bay State is perhaps the most Democratic in the country -- President Barack Obama won it with 62 percent in 2008 -- and theoretically, in a very low turnout election, simply energizing the Democratic base should be enough to drag Coakley over the finish line.

But, what if that simple strategy is wrong?

Strategists on both sides of the partisan divide acknowledge that the Massachusetts electorate is mad as hell, fueling a throw-the-bums-out mentality.

That sentiment is particularly strong among Republican and unaffiliated/independent voters.

A few examples from the recent Boston Globe poll -- released Sunday -- that showed Coakley with a comfortable double-digit lead:

* While Coakley led Brown 53 percent to 36 percent among all voters, she had a far more narrow 48 percent to 42 percent margin among registered "undeclared" voters and the race was statistically tied among self-identified independents.

* On health care, undeclared voters were more inclined to say they opposed the current bill in Congress (48 percent) than said they were supportive of it (37 percent). More than six in ten self identified Republicans (65 percent) strongly opposed the bill while less than three in ten (28 percent) self identified Democrats strongly supported the measure.

* Asked whether total Democratic control of the Massachusetts delegation was a problem, undeclared voters were deeply divided with 51 percent saying it was not and 45 percent saying it was. Self identified independents reflected a similar division -- 49 percent said the Democratic domination was a problem while 45 percent said it was not an issue.

Take those numbers and combine them with the fact that the Democratic-controlled state legislature -- at the urging of the national party -- changed state law to allow a Democratic governor to appoint an interim Senator, that the interim Democratic Senator -- Paul Kirk -- has said he will vote for the health care bill no matter what happens on Tuesday and that the Democratic Secretary of State is quoted as saying that the certification of the election could take until February, and you have a potentially volatile mix for Republicans and independent/unaffiliated voters who are already unhappy with the status quo.

Democratic pollster Fred Yang, who has worked extensively in Massachusetts, acknowledged the risk inherent in nationalizing the race but insisted it was the right strategic move.

"There is always a danger of motivating the other side, but all polls clearly show that our side needs an extra push," explained Yang. "In general, I am not a fan of nationalizing any race, but in the case of Massachusetts, I think this is a smart get-out-the-vote play to remind voters there is an election next week."

To Yang's point, the Globe poll suggests that Coakley's strength is inversely proportional to the level of interest voters have in the election. Among those who say they are either "somewhat" or "not very" interested in the race, Coakley holds a twenty-six point edge. Those who call themselves "very" interested go for Coakley 57 percent to 35 percent. Among the "extremely" interested, however, the race is tied at 47 percent -- a data point that has caused considerable agita for Democratic strategists trying to figure out how to get their base to pay attention to the race.

Bringing in Bill Clinton tomorrow should help in that effort and, if the president himself decides to stump in the state -- a prospect complicated by the ongoing disaster recovery efforts in Haiti -- the base would likely be even more energized in advance of the Tuesday vote.

Still, Democrats have clearly taken a calculated risk in turning the race into a referendum on the two national parties. If Coakley comes up short on Tuesday in a state that strongly favors Democrats, it will send a chilling message to the party about the mood of the electorate nationally.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 14, 2010; 11:30 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Who will win on Tuesday in Massachusetts?
Next: Shadegg retires, 14th Republican out in 2010

Comments

Posted by: larry1221 | January 14, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Am watching Beck/Palin interview on Youtube, including the portion about investigating the Fed's profit. I had a slightly different impression from watching it. The first part about how Beck says he's learned he can't trust *anyone* and where he was when he learned that, has a strange feeling to it. Can you imagine R. Reagan saying something like that, you can't trust anyone. Or either of the Bushs? Palin humored him, but she didn't seem to really buy into this "can't trust anyone idea". At least shows she's a natural politician. Beck comes off as exceedingly strange, she comes off as normal.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers,

Can you believe Beck & Palin? I don't what's worse--they are just cynical populists (ala Huey Long) or they actually believe what they are saying. And this is the duo that some people want to run for political office!! If people want to get away from educated elites, you can't do better than Beck & Palin.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

People of Massachuttes :
Are you aware that choosing Coakley you send her to Washington 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 14, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

From the January 13 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: Did you see that the Fed made the -- you know, Exxon had their record profit a couple years ago. It was $45 billion. The Fed just had record profit, over $50 billion. Nobody's having hearings on the Fed, nobody is looking for a windfall profits tax on the Fed. Nobody seems to -- we can't even open the Fed's books.

PALIN: Yeah. Yeah.

BECK: Where do you stand on the Fed?

PALIN: That -- it's so ironic there too, especially that you bring up this private-sector company, Exxon, because in Alaska we saw what was going on with Exxon, and we did have our own hearings on what was going on with this private-sector company and how could the state of Alaska adjust some things to make sure that there was a share of the resource -- yet you're right. Nobody has even lifted a finger to go that route with the Fed.

Are Palin and Beck suggesting that the Fed pay a tax on its earnings? Do they not realize that that money already belongs to the gubmint?

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 14, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

I just donated my $1k to Scott Brown's campaign and I live in CA.

If he can take an MA seat, then there's hope for California.

Onward and Upward Senator Brown!

Posted by: RobParker | January 14, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

and you'll do anything to turn him into a villain or a fool. maybe the rational people are somewhere in the middle.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 14, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthews is OUT OF HIS MIND


He just said "I wonder how people are going to view a black President going to help a black country - with alot of exciting action."


First, Matthews should not be trying to make political hay out of fatal natural disaster.


Most importantly - relief work is not "exciting action"


Matthews will do ANYTHING to portray Obama as a hero - Matthews is sick.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

MASSACHUSETTS--BIRTHPLACE OF REVOLUTIONS

tea party

american revolution

and Brown's Election in 2010?????

"The strategic play by Democrats is a simple one. The Bay State is perhaps the most Democratic in the country -- President Barack Obama won it with 62 percent in 2008 -- and theoretically, in a very low turnout election, simply energizing the Democratic base should be enough to drag Coakley over the finish line.

But, what if that simple strategy is wrong?

Strategists on both sides of the partisan divide acknowledge that the Massachusetts electorate is mad as hell, fueling a throw-the-bums-out mentality."

Cillizza overlooks the possibilty that DEMS--are also "mad as hell"

Hell hath no fury as unemployed victims

of Depression Obama

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 14, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of Satan, what do people think of Pat Robertson's comments that somehow Haiti made some kind of deal with the devil and somehow the earthquake is a result of that.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Satin himself

wow

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Well,Coaley,After takeing big money,Now she should be proud to have a real impeached Pres.Who cost of billons of dollars,Who forced the banks to give loans to people,With out jobs,Bad credit,& No intention of ever paying it back,Giveing money to fannie mae,freedie mac,& The corrupt founder of ACORN,The same bill clinton,Who lied to America,And even drug down his best friend,And still getting payed from the american people,What better crook to have by your side.If this don't show the Mass. People what they are voteing for,My God Help Us.The only one that has not showed his face is SATIN HIMSELF.But he is with her.

Posted by: dickiesnhogheaven | January 14, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

THE FAILED OBAMA PRESIDENCY

is proven and self evident by

the very fact republican brown has a CHANCE in massachusetts

Depression Obama--why YOU may lose YOUR job and soon.

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 14, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

"This gal Coakley is a Democrat. The election is being held in Massachusetts. Therefore, Coakley wins the election"

Not if the terrorists from Afghanistan get to her first... oh wait, that's ridiculous. There are no terrorists in Afghanistan!

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | January 14, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

By all means, though, send in Bill Clinton (just have some ice handy for Martha Coakley's lip ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

elijah24,

It's interesting that the R's launched an impeachment action that they knew, right from the beginning, would never convict Clinton. Removal from office is a purely political action.

How long did the whole thing go on--couple of years? And how many millions of taxpayer money? And completely sucked the air out of any other agenda. And for what purpose? Not to remove Clinton because that was never going to happen. A reasonable person would wonder what the R's thought they would gain.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Like I said, earlier, Richard Nixon was "technically" wrong to order the break-in and cover-up of the DNC headquarters too. So, you'd better re-think your defense of Bill Clinton.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Of the 22 names on the host committee–meaning they raised $10,000 or more for Coakley–17 are federally registered lobbyists, 15 of whom have health-care clients. Of the other five hosts, one is married to a lobbyist, one was a lobbyist in Pennsylvania, another is a lawyer at a lobbying firm, and another is a corporate CEO. Oh, and of course, there’s also the political action commitee for Boston Scientific Corporation.

All the leading drug companies have lobbyists on Coakley’s host committee: Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, and more. On the insurance side of things, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health all are represented on the host committee.”

“Here are some of Coakley fundraiser hosts with some of their current health care clients:

Thomas Boggs, Patton Boggs: Bristol-Myers Squibb
Chuck Brain, Capitol Hill Strategies: Amgen, BIO, Merck, PhRMA
Susan Brophy, Glover Park Group: Blue Cross, Pfizer
Steven Champlin, Duberstein Group: AHIP, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis
Licy Do Canto, Raben Group: Amgen
Gerald Cassidy, Cassidy & Associates: U. Mass Memorial Health Care
David Castagnetti, Mehlman, Vogel, Castagnetti: Abbot Labs, AHIP, Astra-Zenaca, General Electric, Humana, Merck, PhRMA.
Steven Elmendorf, Elmendorf Strategies: Medicines Company, PhRMA, United Health
Shannon Finley, Capitol Counsel: Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Blue Cross, GE, PhRMA, Sanofi-Aventis.
Heather Podesta, Heather Podesta & Partners: Cigna, Eli Lilly, HealthSouth
Tony Podesta, Podesta Group: Amgen, GE, Merck, Novartis.
Robert Raben, Raben Group: Amgen, GE. “

Posted by: mharwick | January 14, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

37th, If congress had anything on Clinton other than his libido, they would have pushed it when he was in office. Sheriff Newt wanted Clintons scalp. Im not a Bill Clinton fan, but the way that the GOP sycophants vilify him is pathetic. He is not Lincoln, but he is much closer to Lincoln than he is to Hoover...or Bush. Regardless what you choose to believe, he is no longer president. Obama is, and again the big red smear machine is hard at work. And once again when the Democratic party turns power back over to the GOP, be it next year or 20 years from now, the nation will be in a far better place than it was when we inherited power from them.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 14, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

to MASS: Have MORE respect for yourselves and vote BROWN to win!

Coakley can't even spell the state correctly and said they are NO terrorists in Afghanistan- she is a pathetic woman and with friends like Scummy Schumer, Can't keep my zipper up Clinton and the Lying/Cheat Obama - she will ruin Mass.

Posted by: Sparky15 | January 14, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

I've read that Ford was really concerned about Nixon's physical AND mental health too.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

magellan1:

I already absolutely AGREED that your double-reverse "Briar Rabbit" fake-out is, without doubt, a BRILLIANT MOVE! What more do you want?

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

RoguesPalace,

That's interesting about Nixon and suicide. I never heard that before. Do you know more about it?

I think Nixon was one of the century's most influential Presidents, but he was a curious fellow.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

The 17th Amendment states:


When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.


___________________________________-


Once the "people fill the vancancy" that is it - no more shenanigans.


The temporary apppointment of Kirk is OVER NEXT WEEK ON TUESDAY WITH THE ELECTION.


The democrats do not have the vote of Kirk after Tuesday - anything else would create a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS WHICH WOULD WARRANT MARCHES ON WASHINGTON.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

SEND IN ALL OF YOUR "CLOWNS". RENT TD BANKNORTH GET ALL OF YOUR MORONS TO BOSTON
HAVE A BIG PARTY HAVE RETARD REID AND BOTOX PELOSI, GATHER ROUND AND WATCH IT ALL GO DOWN.

Posted by: otisplumber | January 14, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

yes Congressional Repub leaders met with Nixon to tell him the jig was up and time to move back to san clemente for good. my ancient memory is hazy on who they were from House and Senate (one old guy from Penn as I recall, and Howard Baker from Tenn?), but they basically said he would not get most Repub Senate seats in the impeachment trial, and Nixon being a math wizard in junior high, decided to quit... and the unstated reason for Ford pardon was so that Nixon would not commit suicide (a presidential suicide would be very messy), altho I suspect that Nixon was able to get his final winning hand with the pardon, altho Ford's stated reason was national reconcilitation rather than Nixon's supposed proclivity for suicide.

Posted by: RoguesPalace | January 14, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Kennedy's Senate Seat, Solutions

1. Resurrect Kennedy and place him in his seat, next to Schumer.

2. Declare that Brown thinks the Irish uncouth.

3. Legislate a law that only Democrats may serve in the Senate

Posted by: 3rd-PartyAdovcate | January 14, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Rogue wrote:

to have Brown defeat the anointed successor to Prince Teddy would be a major body blow to the Dems, and no spinmeister in the world could change that
---------------------------------------
Absolutely correct. That would be a major body blow to the D's. And that could open the way for Sarah Palin being elected President in 2012. Imagine that!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

nope, obama did not shaft the progressives, rather he just fooled them. the cool thin dude also fooled the majority of indies, and even a good percentage of conservative Dems. as old Pete Townshend would say, Won't get fooled again.

Posted by: RoguesPalace | January 14, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

JakeD wrote:

Care to answer my pending questions to you now?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Magellan1 wrote:

Sorry, I don't come here to answer questions, only to post comments. Agree or disagree, makes no difference to me.

Posted by: magellan1 | January 14, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

assume, for purposes of argument, that Brown is elected to US senate from reliably Dem Mass. that on top of NJ recently electing a GOP governor, by about 4 or 5 points (altho Corzine definitely became damaged goods in the past 2 yrs)...
to have Brown defeat the anointed successor to Prince Teddy would be a major body blow to the Dems, and no spinmeister in the world could change that...as to whether he can be elected, most polls are showing that Ms. Coakley's 20-30 point lead have shrunk to a dead heat. no polls I have seen show Brown as up, but most in the past week, when averaged, show the Coakley lead at 2 to 4 points. and with Mass indies being more than 50 percent of registered voters, their vote could be the game changer. and in NJ, just two months ago, they went big time for the GOP candidate over Corzine.

Posted by: RoguesPalace | January 14, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Other posters will respond when and if they want. They don't need to be prompted or reminded. Quit whining.

Try posting something that isn't obvious bait.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

I live in PA and I just sent 100 to Brown! I am so angry with the Dems I can spit, and I voted for Obama! I am fired up and ready to go to vote Patrick Murphy out of district 8...The wave is coming Dems...Pelosi had driven you off a cliff.

Posted by: paswingvoter2010 | January 14, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

magellan1:

Ah, yes, the double-reverse "Briar Rabbit" fake-out! BRILLIANT MOVE! Care to answer my pending questions to you now?

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse


Once the healthcare bill goes into effect and people start getting their medical bills, and find that their insurance company will no longer be able to stay in business, as will have to be the case with no way to manage risk and provisions for unmaintainable loss ratios, opposition will increase to the 60-80% range. The delusional DP-identifying cretins who're sketchy about the whole "reality" thing.

Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 5:17 PM
--------------------------------
So, you think the stock market is making a mistake bidding up health insurance companies? You would be shorting them?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Having Clinton campaign for a Democrat is no big deal. Now if only Coakley could arrange for Ted to make an appearance...

Posted by: mhr614 | January 14, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

The Dems are trying to gin up a race in Massachusetts, where none exists, so as to deflate any Republican momentum going into the mid-terms once Brown gets his b*tt kicked.

In their naivety, even Fox commentators have taken the bait. Poor Hannity will be left to weakly state that Brown did "a whole lot better than anyone would have imagined", while the enchilada will belong to the Dems.

Posted by: magellan1 | January 14, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

alance:

I would think that the "best" way would be vote for Brown.

COAKLEY / BROWN RACE 'TOSS UP'

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/cook-rothenberg-move-mass-sena.html

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

It’s not paying premiums that people resent, Cletus, it’s being in the hospital fighting cancer and getting a letter reporting that they’ve been dropped by their insurance and are no longer covered.
 
Of course I expect a corporation-fellating Republican to side with them out of pure reflex.  Self-interest, here we come.  Love that pioneer spirit!

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Do you support the war president and his increase in occupation forces in Afghanistan?

Obama shafted the progressives and sold out to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies to get his healthcare bill for Christmas.

If you live in Massachusetts - the best way to show your disapproval is to stay home on election day.

Posted by: alance | January 14, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

If I vote Democrat, do I get all my mortgage, utility, car and school bills paid for me? that was what I heard last time around. So I quit paying my mortgage soon after Obama was elected and guess what - nothing happened. I should have done this long ago but was afraid Bush would take my house.

Now I have extra for beer, crack and hookers.

those evil Repubs are always trying to get us to pay for our own stuff. I understand that crack will be included in the new health care bill. that is why we want the Democrats to win every election.

Posted by: drivl | January 14, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Pot v. Kettle

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Oh look zouk has *another* new moniker, what's this, the twentieth?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

As a devoted liberal and certifiable nutjob, I sincerely believe that all business should be eliminated.

then the One can simply send us all a check out of his private stash.

I trust him.

Posted by: drivl | January 14, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I do remember Tricky Dick very well. What I don't remember is Sen. Goldwater (R-AZ) ever saying he was going to vote for Nixon's conviction. He did write, much later, he warned Nixon privately that fewer than ten (10) Senators would vote AGAINST conviction. That was before any trial started, however. While I already admitted that it would have been an uphill battle, ten is a much better starting point than ZERO. Who knows if Nixon had fought this like Clinton did, and won, he limps through the end of his term and Ford / Carter never become POTUS. It could have been a very different world we are living in today ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

Let me know if you want to continue this side debate.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 5:24 PM
----------------------------------------
Thanks for asking. If you want to quit talking about Nixon, fine with me. [You're jake with me, to go back a looooooong time]

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Putting the insurance companies out of business would have people celebrating in the streets. Who lkes them?
And why in heaven's name should the government have any obligation, much less a good reason, to keep them in business?
Posted by: Noacoler
-----------------------------------------
Putting insurance companies out of business would have people out in the streets, alright, lining up for unemployment. Who likes them? Nobody “likes” to pay premiums but the companies came into existence to allow people to mange risk preventing catastrophic loss to themselves. The government does not have an obligation to keep insurance companies in business just like it has no obligation or reason to keep GM in business. Anyways insurance companies will be around for awhile. Harry and Nancy don’t have the software to pay medical providers if they put insurance companies out of business tomorrow. And we all know the problems government encounters in trying to manage software projects. Is cash for clunkers sorted out yet?

Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

As I stated, 12BarBlues, let me know if you want to continue our side debate.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

magellan1:

Do you know the difference between all "registered" voters and "likely" voters, especially in a special election during a winter storm? If Brown gets the turn-out, he will win.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote:

What a load of revisionist pap.

Nixon resigned because the three Senators mentioned had gone to him and told him that it was over, that they were going to vote against him. Barry Goldwater, one of the last authentic conservatives back when conservative wasn’t a long word for crazy, the rawhidfe-tough Senator from Arizona, wept openly as he told Nixon the news.

Nixon would have stayed in if only out of denial and defiance, doing “the right thing” would never have crossed his mind. It’s not how he was raised, it’s not how he thought. He resigned to minimize his disgrace, not to let the country move on.
--------------------------------------
No kidding. Anyone who actually remembers Nixon would *never* think he was the kind who would quit. Out of honor or for any reason. Nixon was a guy with hutzbah!

And I do think he was a great statesman.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

chrissy, can you give us the inside scoop on ritter? It seems like your area of expertise.

Posted by: drivl | January 14, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"While Coakley led Brown 53 percent to 36 percent among all voters,"

Hello? Isn't that all that matters? ALL VOTERS!

Posted by: magellan1 | January 14, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Only a video? I thought it was a little chilly for golf.

Posted by: drivl | January 14, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

That was years ago, before REPUBLICAN became synonymous with MUD

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

magellan1:

Sen. Brooke and Govs. Romney, Sargent, Volpe were all REPUBLICANS. What's your point?

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Oh, please! Why all the high drama? This gal Coakley is a Democrat. The election is being held in Massachusetts. Therefore, Coakley wins the election - its that simple!

Posted by: magellan1 | January 14, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

“...a commercial paid for the Service Employees International Union seeks to link Brown to the CONTROVERSIAL former governor of Alaska Sarah Palin (R).”

Nothing controversial about a former President of the United States who was outed as a sexual harasser, sexual assaulter, and an accused rapist of a very credible Juanita Broderick. And, then there were all the other scandals.

Posted by: ChesDead | January 14, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

Let me know if you want to continue this side debate.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

health care system which is taking 18% of the GDP
Posted by: RealNews1
------------------------------------------
If 18% is "bad" then what should the percentage be?

Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Keep in mind also that the only precedent up to that point had been President Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial, which lasted from March 30 to May 16, 1868 (yes, I had to look up the exact dates). It was bascially a private affair, only newspapers reporting after the fact. There's no doubt that Nixon's trial could have been dragged out even longer than that. The country had gone through enough via the Congressional hearings (the primary reason cited by Ford to pardon Nixon, although I think he was really concerned about the disgraced President's health). I really can't imagine what a nationally televised trial would have done to both sides.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Putting the insurance companies out of business would have people celebrating in the streets. Who lkes them?

And why in heaven's name should the government have any obligation, much less a good reason, to keep them in business?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Lets face the FACTS: Republicans have been and are utter complete lunatics

To see what Lunatics Republicans are consider some of their positions & beliefs

Republicans were and are for:

The Iraq War that has wasted, to date, $2Trilion dollar of our money set aside how many innocent people it has killed.

But Republicans are:

Against European or Canadian style Universal health care for American people, calling it "Socialism", and for our current bankrupting health care system which is taking 18% of the GDP while leaving 50Mill Americans without health care and even those who have health insurance find out that when they have a health care need they are hit with exorbitant co-pays & deductibles resulting in 2Mill Americans going bankrupt each year due to health care costs while in European countries that ALL have Universal health care ZERO people are going bankrupt each year due to health care costs AND health care is taking 8% of GDP and Europeans have a much higher life expectancy than Americans. For a complete description and analysis of why European or Canadian style Universal health care is MUCH BETTER than US style for profit private insurance based system you can read this article
which covers this issue in full so we do not have to spend more on it here.

So who but a total lunatic would state that providing Universal nationalized health care to Americans will bankrupt us when the EXACT opposite is true as ABSOLUTELY clear by all Europeans countries, Canada, Japan, Israel, etc. having Universal health care.
On this note to see what utter lunatics Republicans are consider the FACT that Republicans are 100% for Israel, they fall over themselves praising Israel and Israel has Universal nationalized health care. Or Republicans, in particularly as personified by their Dear leader Ronald Reagan considered Margaret Tatchers Conservative party in UK to be great and best representative of market economy and the Conservative party in UK is 100% for their Universal nationalized health care, more on these FACTS here.

And one can list dozens of other policies that Republicans are against which would invest in American people (middle class) and cities, such as high speed Trains, renewable Energy, etc. but they are for one War after another, which wastes American people's Taxes on well unnecessary Wars.

U can read much more here:
http://anoox.com/blog/Real_News.34034

Posted by: RealNews1 | January 14, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

What a load of revisionist pap. 
 
Nixon resigned because the three Senators mentioned had gone to him and told him that it was over, that they were going to vote against him.  Barry Goldwater, one of the last authentic conservatives back when conservative wasn’t a long word for crazy, the rawhidfe-tough Senator from Arizona, wept openly as he told Nixon the news.
 
Nixon would have stayed in if only out of denial and defiance, doing “the right thing” would never have crossed his mind.  It’s not how he was raised, it’s not how he thought.  He resigned to minimize his disgrace, not to let the country move on.
 
And it’s too bad, because he was the greatest statesman in the Oval Office at least in my lifetime, probably for the whole 20th century.
 
Comparisons to Palin are insulting.  She resigned to cash in on celebrity and because the job was starting to get hard.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Once the healthcare bill goes into effect and people start getting their medical bills, and find that their insurance company will no longer be able to stay in business, as will have to be the case with no way to manage risk and provisions for unmaintainable loss ratios, opposition will increase to the 60-80% range. The delusional DP-identifying cretins who're sketchy about the whole "reality" thing.

Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

The portrait of the president is really an effort in poison-pen pointillism, where hundreds and hundreds of razor sharp paragraphs combine to create a deeply disquieting picture of the new president. President Obama is presented as insecure and needy of reassurance (p. 25), self-important, cynical and megalomaniacal (pp 30-31), petulant and spoiled (p. 111), touchy and vain (p. 112), hypocritical (p. 119), overweening (p. 184) and deceptive (p. 120.) Hillary and Bill are used as mouthpieces for the conclusions that President Obama is an empty-suit elitist both vindictive and small. (p. 231, p. 241 and p. 267), but it is Halperin and Heilmann who are the hit men, delivering the private judgments and accusations to the public.

Posted by: drivl | January 14, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

theobserver4:

I was being one too ...

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

History is rarely judged accurately (even by the vaunted -- at the time -- WaPo) the day it occurs.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

SEIU, Big Pharma lobbyists, insurance lobbyists all backing Coakley because she is for the HC bill, plus paying mega bucks for smear ads against Brown. Pelosi coming out from behind closed doors with a "special" deal hammered out for Big Labor thugs. That tells me all I need to know about Obamacare. Corruption reigns.

Posted by: inmanorj | January 14, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

theobserver4:

Instead of "local" issues dominating, "national" issues such as Obamacare are dominating (read the article you are commenting on for helpful clues : )

Posted by: JakeD

------------------------------------------

yea I was being a smart alec. I still say this is no more national than the precinct up in tundra town (R) NY though. It's the endless horse race media for the most part. The 24 hour news cycle is going to desensitize us to the point of being oblivious to the world around us.

Posted by: theobserver4 | January 14, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse


obama sent a video! A VIDEO!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Welcome Senator Brown!

Posted by: ItsOver2 | January 14, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

I would disagree -- Nixon certainly knew it would have been an uphill battle and (like Gov. Palin) that there would basically be no governing during the fight -- maybe it was more to save face, but it was still the HONORABLE thing to do rather than drag the country through such a trial. As always YMMV.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

What you may or may not know is that Congressional investigators were looking into charges against Clinton in concerning money from China and Indonesia at the DNC - but they decided to go with the sex charges instead.


You should look into that.

Posted by: 37thand0street
-----------------------------------------
Ever notice that the Chinese, after sleeping in the Clinton White House, were able to lauch rockets successfully and otherwise greatly improve their military technology.

Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Opinion polls about the HCR bill are entirely meaningless.  The only point worth noting is that there are still a lot of people in favor of it, and the reason this matters is because we have all been firehosed with lies and fear and hate about it.  Sarah Palin has particularly distinguished itself by claiming the bill includes euthanasia provisions, a lie with no foundation in fact whatsoever, a clean break from the GOP tradition of simply exaggerating like mad.
 
Once the bill goes into effect and people start getting their medical bills, and find that their insurance is no longer able to legally weasel out of filling their contracts, opposition will dwindle to the 17-25% range, the angry GOP-identifying cretins who're sketchy about the whole "reality" thing.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

JakeD says:
No, but Nixon's conviction in the Senate was not a "done deal" either.
-----------------------------------------
Maybe not, but my point is that Nixon did not resign out of some kind of honor. Here's what the WP had to say the day of his resignation:

"It seemed inevitable then that this would be his last week in office, yet he continued to fight back and to insist that he would not resign. On Tuesday, the President held a Cabinet meeting and told his official family that he would not resign.

On Wednesday, however, the end appeared near, for his support on Capitol Hill was disappearing at dizzying speed. There were demands from some of his staunchest supporters that he should resign at once.

Late Wednesday, the President met with Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott (R-Pa.), House Minority Leader John J. Rhodes (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Barry M. Goldwater (R-Ariz.).

They said afterward that the President had made no decision, but it was obvious later that for all intents and purposes the decision had been made despite what the leaders said. They obviously could not make the announcement for him, but it must have been apparent to them that the end was at hand."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

WHAT PERCENTAGE OF PRECINCTS USE ELECTRONIC VOTINV MACHINES?

Could this be the year the dark side- controlled community watch pitchfork goons who often volunteer as poll watchers work some electronic chicanery?

Remember that flick, "Man of the Year" with Robin Williams and a cameo by Chris Matthews? Who's watching the Mass. poll watchers?

The Dems never remedied the lack of a voter-verified paper trail. Now that every Senate vote counts bigtime, the Dems may pay for their misplaced trust in a (deliberately?) flawed electoral process.

***

U.S. GOV'T USES CBS NEWS TO COVER UP MICROWAVE CELL TOWER TORTURE, FED-DIRECTED COMMUNITY WATCH PERSECUTION OF U.S. CITIZENS?

• A government-wide cover up that makes Watergate look like just another black bag job?

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

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://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 14, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse


In any election, I believe the following to be true:

Democratic win =

Incompetence
Higher Taxes without spending cuts
Poorly targetd spending that does nothing to address critical, legitimate needs.
Irrational use of labor
Population divided into ethnic and gender based interest groups
Expensive oil with no new drilling
Exploitation of suffering

Republican win =

Incompetence
Lower taxes without spending cuts, thus increasing the deficit
Tax credits for blowing your nose, thereby adding to the deficit
Jesus
Foreign adventurism and neoconservatism
Over-regulation of anything that benefits anybody, lack of regulation for anything that benefits business.
Weakening of the dollar
Expensive oil with new drilling
Inevitable Chinese ownership of Federal properties.
Indifference to suffering.

God save us.

Posted by: RadicalGlove | January 14, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

coakley expressed her disgust of Fenway Park and the Red Sox and the people of Boston all in one breath.

Why, woman, do you want to represent everything you hate?

Posted by: ItsOver2 | January 14, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

No, but Nixon's conviction in the Senate was not a "done deal" either.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/20093451

theobserver4:

Instead of "local" issues dominating, "national" issues such as Obamacare are dominating (read the article you are commenting on for helpful clues : )

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Lest we forget: Bill Clinton wanted to go after Osama bin Laden, but Republicans ridiculed him and, led by Sen. Phil Gramm, (GOOP, Texas), accused him of trying to distract from the infinitely more important investigation of his illicit bl0wjob.
 
Thanks a lot, Republican scumsuckers.  Gotcha politics trumps national security.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

People of Earth


Do you realize that once Obama loses someone, it's going to be really really hard to get that person back?


It's the hypocrisy.

Thank you.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

37th, I gotta run. I'll continue this in a couple of hours.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 14, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Last I checked I can't vote in this election as I'm not a resident of Mass.

Please explain how this has "gone national".

Posted by: theobserver4 | January 14, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

What do you expect. Liberals are all about finding loopholes and exceptions. They are the party if no controlling legal authority.

Barry is a lawyer. Do is his wide. Bill was a lawyer until he was disbarred. So was his wife. John and Elizabeth Edwards. I'm fact since 84 every lib nominee went to law school( gore dropped out). Since 76 every vp. Harry Reid, peloony, all lawyers and parasites.

Repubs are business builders. Bush, Cheney,

Gingrich was a professor. Delay an exterminator. Armey an economist. Boehner a manufacturer, frist a surgeon. Ford was our last lawyer.

Libs hate business. They love loopholes and lawsuits, rules they can break and secrets to divulge. Their promises mean nothing.

Get the picture?

Posted by: Moonbat | January 14, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Who knows, maybe Tricky Dick could have beat the wrap too!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 4:41 PM
--------------------------------------
Nixon resigned after the Republicans met with him privately and told him they would vote for conviction. Otherwise, he wouldn't have resigned. Does Nixon seem like the quitter type to you?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Richard Nixon was "technically" wrong to order the break-in and cover-up of the DNC headquarters too. Careful how far down the rabbit hole you go with this particular argument, son.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

elijah24


What you may or may not know is that Congressional investigators were looking into charges against Clinton in concerning money from China and Indonesia at the DNC - but they decided to go with the sex charges instead.

You should look into that.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse


If its 50% now, I'd say 55% by the end of the year. and by the next election i see it being in the high 60s or low 70s.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 14, 2010 4:38 PM
-----------------------------------------
I'm assuming you mean that the negatives will go down to say 45% by end of the year and down to 30% by end of 2012. The reason I'm focusing on the negatives is that there is about 10% undecided.

I think the undecided's will trend toward approval, so that adds to the approval #. After all, if you can be undecided about this still, you are not a partisan.

About 15 points of the negatives are liberals, so gradually they will trend positive.

So that makes about 25 points of potential approval swing over time. And that's not converting any of the strong conservative disapproval.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton should help all right and while they're at it why not bring in Marion "Crack" Barry. He can get coffee for Slick Willie as they watch Martha Croakly get her butt kicked.....LOL

Scott Brown will be the next Senator from Massachusetts

Posted by: Bludawgs | January 14, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

People of Massachuttes :
Are you aware that choosing Coakley you send her to Washingtonto 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 14, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Coakley is sinking faster than a scallop in the bay.


The more commercials the democrats run, the worse it is for her.

Did she resign her attorney general position yet, I mean can she still put innocent people in jail ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is going up there to see what the chicks look like...he still has an eye (and other things) for the girls. Ask Hillary who stays away from him most of the time.

Posted by: tonyjm | January 14, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

What justice? This had nothing to do with justice and you know it. And the perjury would never have happened if he hadnt been asked a question he should never have had to answer. Was he technically wrong to lie, of course. Even he doesn't deny that, but the question should never have been asked. So no, in this case, because the interogator was as guilty as his subject, it is in deed, none of your damn business. And frankly, thats exactly what he should have said.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 14, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Who knows, maybe Tricky Dick could have beat the wrap too!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

elijah24

What Bill Clinton has also done is given every corrupt democrat a reason to NOT resign, and instead hang on to their jobs - Bill has stunk up the place.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, President Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the U.S. House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228-206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221-212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed -- a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205-229 vote) and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148-285 vote) -- that's still more than what Nixon resigned over.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

If its 50% now, I'd say 55% by the end of the year. and by the next election i see it being in the high 60s or low 70s.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 14, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Perjury and obstructing justice are none of our business now?!

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

It will say alot about the MA voters if they vote for Coakley. Looking at the current congress and administration and what their agenda is, this vote in MA is like voting between Marx and Geo Washington. As Brown said, this is not Kennedy's seat nor the dems seat, it is the peoples seat. Unless, of course, the MA voters decide to leave it as the dems seat.

Posted by: awunsch | January 14, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse


I think the numbers will go up, 12bar. probably not right away, but once it starts to take effect, and people will see what it actually does, in stead of the phantom menace (sorry George Lucas, it was the best term for it. please don't sue me) that its opponents have turned it into in the minds of their kool-aid guzzling disciples.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 14, 2010 4:27 PM
-----------------------------------
Let's say the negatives today are 50% (RealClearPolitics average of healthcare polls), where do you see that # by end of 2010? Just polishing up our crystal ball.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

yonasolo


The democrats of Massachusetts know that they are doing that. And they don't care. AND they think they are better people for it.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

37th, i think resignation might be a little bit excessive. What President Clinton did was grounds for divorce. Not for impeachment. He did something stupid that gave the torche weilding mob all they needed to impeach him. that whole situation was nothing more than a witch hunt and while what he did was wrong, it was none of my business or yours. It has nothing to do with his job as President.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 14, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

"Actually the staggering medical costs are going to come
from the red states, which have the fattest people, the most smokers, the least physically fit.

Posted by: Noacoler "
--
Not to mention that it is the blue states that pay the taxes in this country, the four remaining solidly red states are the biggest welfare states in the country
---- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----

WTF are you talking about? The states with some of the highest job growth and lowest unemployment TODAY are RED states.

(Texas, Virginia, Nebraska, Wyoming, Dakotas, etc), have some of the lowest unemployment in the US and lowest tax rates to boot.

I live in CA, one of the bluest states in the US. Companies are bailing out of here as fast as possible due to the oppressive tax rates and high regulatory burdens on employment.

In fact, more people are currently migrating to red states from blue states.

They must be tired of paying for all of those unemployed slobs hanging out in the liberal states.

Posted by: RobParker | January 14, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

pilgrim1629


Yea, on one day


and not this week.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

People of Massachuttes : are you aware that If you chose Coakley you are sending her to Washington to vote for irational spending ,masive taxation ,closed doors decisions, enormous deficit, digusting briberies,broken promises. unbelievable incompetence and who knows other paranoic democratic decisions

Posted by: yonasolo | January 14, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I think the numbers will go up, 12bar. probably not right away, but once it starts to take effect, and people will see what it actually does, in stead of the phantom menace (sorry George Lucas, it was the best term for it. please don't sue me) that its opponents have turned it into in the minds of their kool-aid guzzling disciples.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 14, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't bode well for President Obama's or Democrats future. Imagine, having to put all the resources of the President behind a single election. When one's policies are so unpopular that it comes down to one person to survive a vote, the baby is clearly ugly. Any of the democrats from anything close to moderate districts are toast if they vote for healthcare. The Coakley debacle has clearly demonstrated that.

Posted by: donchew1 | January 14, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Exactly right donchew!

With the race even being THIS close and this controversial for a MA senate seat, the Dems have already taken a huge PR hit.

With the overwhelming majorities they enjoy in federal government and the president's signature legislation being held up by this one particular state senate seat is a true testimony to the weakness of their policies.

Posted by: RobParker | January 14, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton had any honor or self-respect, he would have resigned.


Before all you democrats disagree, think about this:


If Clinton had resigned, Al Gore would have been President, and probably elected to his own term in 2000.

Think about it.

Obama would not be President now - and the whole country would not have to endure all these left-wing terrorist releases.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

scumbag listen to hillary.carpetbag to mass and u will be senator.

Posted by: pofinpa | January 14, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Again with the un-informed non-locals. There has been HOCKEY!!! at Fenway Park this winter. Google it.


Re:

Coakley shot back: "As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands? This is a special election."


----------


Coakley doesn't even know she has to go to the Boston Garden to find a crowd this time of year.

Someone cut this chick loose, please.

Posted by: pilgrim1629 | January 14, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

After the healthcare bill is signed, what does everyone think will happen to the healthcare polling numbers? Go up? Go down? and why?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Jake and Rob are right, Beeker. And I hope you know how much it hurt me to say that.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 14, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

________ ___________ __________


haha...

Posted by: RobParker | January 14, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"resurrecting her flagging Senate bid"?! Please, get me someone who knows something about Mass. politics. When the results are in, Brown will be trying to spin his candidacy as something other than an embarassment.

Posted by: pilgrim1629 | January 14, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't bode well for President Obama's or Democrats future. Imagine, having to put all the resources of the President behind a single election. When one's policies are so unpopular that it comes down to one person to survive a vote, the baby is clearly ugly. Any of the democrats from anything close to moderate districts are toast if they vote for healthcare. The Coakley debacle has clearly demonstrated that.

Posted by: donchew1 | January 14, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Jake and Rob are right, Beeker. And I hope you know how much it hurt me to say that.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 14, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

BROWN will be elected by the majority of the furious American against Obama's "ACHIEVEMENTS".
Obama visit in Boston will help him and not Coakley.
Who wants in Washington a new vote for irational spending ,masive taxation ,closed doors decisions, enormous deficit, digusting briberies,broken promises and unbelievable incompetence ?

Posted by: yonasolo | January 14, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

"Actually the staggering medical costs are going to come
from the red states, which have the fattest people, the most smokers, the least physically fit.

Posted by: Noacoler "
--
Not to mention that it is the blue states that pay the taxes in this country, the four remaining solidly red states are the biggest welfare states in the country.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 14, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

beeker25:

YOU just admitted that Bill Clinton was "impeached"!!! I think the word you are looking for is that he was not "convicted".

JakeD
Reread what I said: The House VOTED to impeach but the Senate FAILED to CONVICT thus Clinton was not impeached and was ABLE to SERVE out his term- NOT removed from office. Reread the Constitution on such proceeding you will find it that I am right.

----------------------------------------

Wrong. Clinton WAS impeached but was acquitted by the Senate. To be impeached, he simply needed to be charged with a crime, which he was.

Posted by: RobParker | January 14, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

BROWN will be elected by the majority of the furious American againstObama's "ACHIEVEMENTS".
Obama visit in Boston will help him and not Coakley.
Who wants in Washington a new vote for irational spending ,masive taxation ,closed doors decisions, enormous deficit, digusting briberies,broken promises and unbelievable incompetence ?.

Posted by: yonasolo | January 14, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

26%!!!! Are you kidding?! She isn't Senator Kennedy. She isn't even John Kerry. There is no way she will win by 26%. I'll call it a beat-down if she wins by 10%. She is running for her first term. She hasn't had time to build popularity overwhelming popularity yet. I think you pulled that 26% out of your- the air to play the expectations game, so that you can still call a Cokley win, even a big one, a moral victory for your side.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 14, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Coakley shot back: "As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands? This is a special election."


----------


Coakley doesn't even know she has to go to the Boston Garden to find a crowd this time of year.


Someone cut this chick loose, please.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

12bar: re the mismatch of posters and columnists.

Note how many if the posts from the non-trolls here are rebuttals if lies and misinformation / disinformation, both from the goons and from the columnist. The roles could not be clearer.

Liberals feel compelled to refute lies, those what call themselves conservatives now feel compelled to spread them.

Look which side does so many raw assertions.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Nationalize health care, banks, auto industry,.....why not Coakley?

Posted by: read5 | January 14, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

DwightCollins and elijah24


Obama won Mass 62 % to 36 % so the bar is 26% diferential.

Anything above 26% margin of victory means Coakley is doing better.


Anything below 26% margin of victory means that Coakley is doing worse.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

smcsmc

smcsmc is 100% correct. This special election is not about Ted Kennedy, God rest his soul.


The election is about Obama - and the electorate reacting to his overreaching, arrogant health care plan.

The voters of Massachusetts can not WAIT to give Obama a black eye.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"Here's what I want to know: If Cokley wins this race by 10% or better, will all of you who are getting off on "how close this is" show up the next day and admit that things are going better for the Dems than you thought?
Posted by: elijah24 | January 14, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse"

absolutely, after all, if the independents don't show up, the dems themselves should be able to elect her...
but if the independents do show up...
it's anyones guess what will happen...
but note what happens in mass. may or may not happen in another state where independents make the difference on who wins...

Posted by: DwightCollins | January 14, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Corruption is just too strong in the Northeast. Brown will lose big. The Unions and ACORN rules in Ted's old stomping grounds. Sad, really.

Posted by: tjhall1 | January 14, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Actually the staggering medical costs are going to come
from the red states, which have the fattest people, the most smokers, the least physically fit.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Chris, what bugs me a bit is how people keep calling it Ted Kennedy's seat and his health care bill. The Governor appointed Martha Coakley to fill "Ted Kennedy's seat". Tomorrow's special election is to fill "Ted Kennedy's seat". Brown will vote against "Ted Kennedy's Health Care Reform Bill". Really? I think TK is beyond health care at this point (no disrespect intended). He had EXCELLENT health care. It's the PEOPLE's health care that's at stake (regardless which side of the debate you are on).

At stake is a seat left vacated when Ted Kennedy passed. With all due respect to TK, it was not HIS seat. Never was. Look, he as a good guy. I liked him okay. Disagreed with many of his policies, but he seemed to genuinely care, particularly in his later years.

This race has NOTHING to do with Ted Kennedy. And for the media to keep framing it that way seems to show a bias and some sort of agenda.

And why should Mrs. Kennedy be of significance? Is this some sort of entitlement? Does she get to "pass the torch"? Does she have some special voice or influence over the people of Mass.? As an outsider looking in... one would get the impression from much of the media coverage that the people of Mass. are a bunch of mindless sheep, incapable of evaluating the issues (in either direction).

To frame this election in the context of Teddy makes Mass. seems a bit disingenuous. And to be honest, it is disrespectful of the people of Mass. and Constitution that Teddy so faithfully served.

Just one person's opinion.

PEACE!

Posted by: smcsmc | January 14, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Here's what I want to know: If Cokley wins this race by 10% or better, will all of you who are getting off on "how close this is" show up the next day and admit that things are going better for the Dems than you thought?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 14, 2010 3:29 PM
-----------------------------------------
If Coakley wins, I predict that the next analysis will be what vitaglubet says: "Too bad there are so few voters in MA operate on principle."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Thanks TIMROPERCO. I have been curious as to the viewpoint of Massachusetts people concerning their states healthcare program. Sounds like the rest of the country is about to get the same. Not only are you paying more than I am (currently) but you will get the extra reward of paying for Nebraska medicare.

Posted by: sportsfan2 | January 14, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Too bad there are so few voters in MA operate on principle. It seems there is no hope that the Northeast will ever recover. The simple fact that they have called on the pathological liar Bill Clinton (there is ample empirical evidence) should be enough to defeat Coakley but alas, the folk who want others to pay their way are winning.

Posted by: vitaglubet | January 14, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, what are all the goobers getting excited about? Coakley is going to win Kennedy's seat, and that too by a comfortable margin.

Look, even the GOP knows this -- they are not spending ANY money from the RNC coffers on this race, and letting Brown sink or... well actually sink is it.

Posted by: HumanSimpleton | January 14, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Gary, what specifically is so unbelievable about the Democratic line?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 14, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Here's what I want to know: If Cokley wins this race by 10% or better, will all of you who are getting off on "how close this is" show up the next day and admit that things are going better for the Dems than you thought?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 14, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Clinton going to Massachusetts does not "nationalize" the senate race. It has been nationalized for a long time.

The Pubs have been slobbering over the possibility of getting a seat.

I used to be a Republican. Got a "please contribute" call from one of the party arms that is always asking for money. Loved telling them what I thought of the party of do-nothing, "just say no" to everything.

That was fun.


Posted by: amelia45 | January 14, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

"noacoler = banned poster

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse"

I see you're still calling out by name only one person to stay away, who was previously banned. Pretty hypocritical to focus on just a single person, when there's someone else here who's been banned just as often. Either PROVE that "Moonbat" is NOT Zouk/Snobama, or stop calling for Noacoler to be banned. I don't agree with all his opinions either, but you're just being hypocritical.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | January 14, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

beachnut,

I think that what The Fix is referring to is that Brown's approval is changing rapidly, and who knows where his numbers will be by election day. Most voters make up their minds the last week, so this COULD be significant.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Renee needs to look at the FIVE straight congressional special elections the Democraps won this year.

The Republicans? Didn't win 1.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 14, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

------------------------------------
Republicans are winning Governorships dearie AND giving this Coakley lady a run for her money for a seat that was SUPPOSE to be a sure thing for the Dems. Somethings cooking...and it "ain't" the Dems.....double, triple, chuckle.

Posted by: ReneesOpinion | January 14, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse


jnsphorn: it's called cherrypicking. Cillizza is a slavish gooperbooster.

Welcome to the fix. It's not a place you'll get a balanced view.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 3:10 PM
-------------------------------------
Don't you think it is interesting that you, me and other liberal leaners are congregated on The Fix, which leans right.

I notice on Real Clear Politics that the right leaners congregate on columns by liberals EJ Dionne and Eugene Robinson. There are conservative columnists, but almost always, the posters seem to ignore those columns.

Check it out sometime on RCP, there will be 300 comments on liberal columns, and 25 on conservative columns.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

How any thinking person can buy into the Democratic line and vote for them is beyond belief.
I sincerely hope that the people of Massachusetts don't fall for these tactics.
They started the rebellion against King George in 1773, it would be good for America to see them continue on the tradition.

Posted by: garys_opinion | January 14, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Coakley is a shill for the SEIU and ACORN. She can only win by criminal intimidation. If she wins, then the people need to dispute the election in court, no matter what.

Americans need to take our country back from the pawns of the special interests who control our government today.

Posted by: RobParker | January 14, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I am confused about this issue. Every poll statistic quoted in this article seems to indicate that Coakley has the lead. There are a couple of subsets of the voters mentioned where it is close, but for the most part among most groups she seems to be comfortably ahead (which makes sense given that she is a Democrat and she is running in perhaps the strongest Democrat state in the Union). Does the author or the Democrat hierarchy know something that they are not stating? At least based on this article, she should win in a walk. As bad as the health care reform bills may be, this is still a place where Liberals should feel at home. What is the issue?

Posted by: beachnut | January 14, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

The beautiful thing is that even if Brown should lose, conservatism will win. They've struck fear into the one place that was always a democrat sure bet. And if it can happen there, well, get your blanket Linus and double up on your panties, its gonna be a wild ride come 2010.

My God I love "Hope and Change" (tm)

Posted by: luca_20009 | January 14, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

jnsphorn: it's called cherrypicking. Cillizza is a slavish gooperbooster.

Welcome to the fix. It's not a place you'll get a balanced view.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

12bar: it's OK. Let him stalk me, nobody cares what he says anyway. If I vanished he'd just have someone else to stalk, someone who might be bothered by it. Let him obsess over someone who doesn't give a damn.

This blog is reverse chronological, we read from the bottom up and see the moniker before the post. Just hit PgUp as soon as you see JakeD, Moonbat, 37th, leapin, or armpeg. Reading their posts is at best a waste of time and sometimes it's sickening.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 3:03 PM
-----------------------------------------
It's one of my little hobbies, to try to figure out the motivations of posters who spend a lot of time/energy on a single topic. Maybe Jake will tell us why he's so focused on you, like it would somehow transform his life. He claims he's a happy person, so that can't be it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Renee needs to look at the FIVE straight congressional special elections the Democraps won this year.

The Republicans? Didn't win 1.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 14, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I love the scene last night on the news where a reporter was asking Coakley some tough questions, she turned away from him, asked if there were other questions. THEN one of her hench men literally mauled the reporter, blocking his access to her and eventually knocking him down. Are the Union mobsters working with/for her-- No? How about the Black Panters - No? Then maybe ACORN?? Any of these would be capable of mauling !!! Those Dems - they know how to evade unpleasant questions AND get rid of reporters with "difficult" questions for their candidates.

Posted by: ReneesOpinion | January 14, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Why is the Boston Globe even cited? All other polls are SIGNIFICANTLY (not within margin of error)different than Globe's

Posted by: jnsphorn | January 14, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

To jackas and a few of your co-hort posters on here.

Know what a co-hort is? Did not think so. You need to go back to school and ask that they teach you something! The things you sight for our taxes belong to the state and local government. The Constitution made the state and local government in charge of our "rights" like libraries, schools, etc. The federal governement has usurped our states' rights. These people in the democat party are progressives and radicals, for the most part. Many of them are communists, maoists and worse. The dems are there for THEIR best interests - not ours. They are supposed to represent US not special interests or themselves. Go back to school, get a job, then post. You need to open your eyes and your mind. Or you will be a slave before you know it.

Posted by: annnort | January 14, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

An undemocratic government is an illegitimate government. If SEIU/Teamster/New Black Panther brownshirts are allowed to intimidate voters next Tuesday, If the Democratic vote counters discover "irregularities" or if the Democrats to a 1994 Ellen Saurerby, I suggest that every right thinking American buy a gun and be prepared to use it.

Posted by: JERRYB1 | January 14, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

12bar: it's OK. Let him stalk me, nobody cares what he says anyway. If I vanished he'd just have someone else to stalk, someone who might be bothered by it. Let him obsess over someone who doesn't give a damn.

This blog is reverse chronological, we read from the bottom up and see the moniker before the post. Just hit PgUp as soon as you see JakeD, Moonbat, 37th, leapin, or armpeg. Reading their posts is at best a waste of time and sometimes it's sickening.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

sovine08:

I thought he did that as Governor only?

12BarBlues:

I am already a happy person. I would probably stop posting here though ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, timroperco. SOMEONE has to take the reins of this out-of-control government before it hits an iceberg (mixed metaphor for shrink2 ; )

Some Democrat below actually told me that Boston is doing "just fine" without all of us conservatives who would love to spend our travel dollars in your State.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"John Edwards, Daniel Inouye , Barney Frank, on and on, ...it’s on both sides."

It is on both sides, but the Democrats do much less finger wagging. Edwards being a notable exception. Quite the scumbag.
Posted by: koolkat_1960
_____
How about Gov Spitzer as an exception. While D.A. in NY he prosecuted people in the prostitution business while he was at the same going to a prostitute?? He was more than even finger pointing...

Posted by: sovine08 | January 14, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

You right wing howlers can squall all you want but the truth is that conservatism--particularly the farther right you go--is not very popular among the people when you identify specifically just what policies conservatives believe in--which, when it comes to government, is exactly squat.

Posted by: jaxas70 | January 14, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

----------------------------
Well HELLO-- those recent, "very real" Republican wins in Virginia and New Jersey must have just flown right over your head...hmmmmmm????

Posted by: ReneesOpinion | January 14, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Way to go, timroperco. Don't like how things are so you plan to vote to make them a lot worse. Yeah you're exactly the kind of citizen Jefferson and Adams had in mind. Thinking with your ductless glands.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Democrats have had complete control of Congress for the last 36 months.

How do you like what they've accomplished with the economy, energy independence, the wars in the Middle East, jobs, ethics in government, etc., so far?

Are you impressed?

I HOPE for CHANGE in 2010 and 2012.

Posted by: TruData | January 14, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: leapin
when one entity gets a “break” the rest of us will pay even more.
------
That's the problem here. You can also chalk that up to influence peddling or passing the buck onto the next guy to pay for it and it has been done for years.
The reason why something needs to be change drastically to fix the problem. Given what we have now, [sigh]

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

If you could get your fondest wish and really, totally, permanently and for all time, now and in the future, ban Noacoler from posting, I'm curious--would that change the nature of your postings? Would you be a happier person?

I'm trying to understand your motivation.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 14, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

The political party that is bigger than Republicans or Democrats is the Independents.

Independents are breaking for Brown 72 percent to 24 percent.

I thought it was interesting how Cilizza left that fact out of his article.

Posted by: charko825 | January 14, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

Just ignore her.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

I live and vote here in Massachusetts, and I think the notion of Bill Clinton suddenly showing up for Martha is a bit silly. What do they expect, people to swoon?

The Dems may want to go national, but as Tip O'Neill famously said, all politics is local. And here in Massachusetts people are peeved over a lot of local things -- state sales tax increase, local property tax increases, job losses, economic slowdown, falling home values. And we're already pissed by an onerous state health care system that increased my annual costs 20% for a new plan that provides less...and we expect worse from the Reid-Pelosi plan(s).

I know the Senate vote won't change things here. But it does give me a chance to express my views of how they are.

Will I vote for a candidate who symbolizes all that's wrong in Massachusetts?

Or someone else?

Take a guess ...

Posted by: timroperco | January 14, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

If Brown's campaign has never seen anything like this flood of support they need to think back a couple of months to the NY CD 23 special election. Doug Hoffman experienced a similar avalanche of help at the very end... and he lost.

Local elections are about local issues. Hoffman's ideas were very unpopular with the locals, and Brown's ideas are unpopular with the voters of Massachusetts.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 14, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

OK Chris


drindl at 1:47 Another ad hominem attack


Chris you really have to BAN drindl now.


This is completely out of control.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Never got the chance to say it, I saw your duel with Amy Walter on PBS Newshour last week and not bad. Amy does good job from what I've been hearing thus far.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are still trying to grasp the stunning possibility that Brown, gaining ground daily on Democrat Martha Coakley, might actually win the seat formerly occupied by Sen. Ted Kennedy. To say Brown's campaign is surging is an understatement. His campaign offices are buzzing with energy and crowded with volunteers. He's all over the media. And his fundraising is hitting highs he never expected.

Things are going so well, and moving so fast, that the Brown team is having a hard time keeping up. At his headquarters in Needham, people walk in off the street asking for a Brown sign to put in their yard. But the campaign is out of them -- can't keep up with demand. "I've never seen anything like this," says a volunteer who's answering the phones, apologizing for the shortage, and advising supporters to print out their own signs from the Internet.

Posted by: jahoby | January 14, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

leapin:
Did you hear the news that Obama and the Dems have decided to "exempt" the Cadilac-healthplans for UNIONS from any taxes. The rest of us with those level of healthplans will get a special tax ...
Posted by: JakeD
-----------------------------------------
I heard a little about the plan in the car but have not had the time to determine what it all means. But one thing I do know is that when one entity gets a “break” the rest of us will pay even more. With all the breaks and exemptions, etc. there needs to be an analysis of where you should live to survive. Maybe get a government union job in Nebraska or something like that.

Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Interesting Kenedy threw the Clintons under the bus when he backed Obama instead of Hillary.. now they want Bill to come in and save his seat??? I'm surprised Bill didn't say take a hike...

Posted by: sovine08 | January 14, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Drible wrote:
“Really is amazing how much the dialogue coming from the right hasn't changed since the fascism of the 30s. Exactly the same stuff, in the same words. Just substitute 'liberals' for 'Jews.'
Guess how many times the liberal New York Slimes reported on the Holocaust in the 30’s and 40’s – extremely rarely.


Posted by: jahoby
-------
The same can be said of the actions by the political leaders in many countries -especially in Europe.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"Folks,

Just wanted to let you know that I am well aware that some of the people we have banned for bad behavior are back under different names.

I have checked with our IT people and aside from banning people by username AND IP address there isn't much else we can do.

If someone is committed to commenting -- and disrupting -- the only way we as a community can truly stop it is by a) ignoring them and/or b) shaming them into better behavior.

I continue to be amazed by the fact that these people, who profess to hate me and the blog so virulently, go to such lengths to ensure they can keep returning to the blog.

Thanks to everyone who is working hard to abide by the rules and make the comments section a worthwhile endeavor.

Thanks,
Chris"

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | January 7, 2010 11:46 AM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/-1-2-3-a17-democrats-lose-majority-in-poll.html

noacoler = banned poster

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Drible wrote:
“Really is amazing how much the dialogue coming from the right hasn't changed since the fascism of the 30s. Exactly the same stuff, in the same words. Just substitute 'liberals' for 'Jews.'
Guess how many times the liberal New York Slimes reported on the Holocaust in the 30’s and 40’s – extremely rarely.

Posted by: jahoby | January 14, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: TheFreeMan

----
I can not say it better than that. You have to remember most if not all people go by emotion rather than facts and it is easily exploited by the few who know how to push a button- say a hot button issue.

Politic is about emotion on the basis of who's right or wrong instead of working together to solve a problem. The best way forward is critical analysis.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Wow I've never had to scroll past so many idiotic posts.

This site reminds me of those hit-wh0res who stick names of celebrities into the HTML to draw google clicks. A click is is a click, who cares if it's brainless racist idiocy, right, Cillizza?

Yeah, republican rising. Like we all have amnesia.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I leave the most of you with one single comment to ponder, which might help you utilize the reason, sense and intuition that you were graced with from birth...and possibly help you grasp the actual function and purpose of politics.

"Half the work that is done in this world is to make things appear as they are not." -- Elias Root Beadle, a true American.

Posted by: TheFreeMan | January 14, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Curt Schilling would have done better or worse than State Sen. Brown?

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960 wrote:
Elizabeth Edwards ain't exactly a saint either, if you know what I mean.
Jahoby wrote:
Hillary Clinton ain’t exactly a babe, if you know what I mean.
Koolkat wrote:
You’re ‘right’ about that jahoby – as you usually are, big guy.
Jahoby wrote:
Thanks, Kitty!

Posted by: jahoby | January 14, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Really is amazing how much the dialogue coming from the right hasn't changed since the fascism of the 30s. Exactly the same stuff, in the same words. Just substitute 'liberals' for 'Jews.'

Posted by: drindl
--------
I'm not condoning to calling names but it is a fact and true because a emeritis professor did a study known as Rhetoric Analysis which he studied many statements made by the conservatives and the same thing can apply to the liberals as well over the last few centuries because they were so sure of themselves that they are right and the other side is wrong. It is an interesting read about it.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Coakley is paying SEIU and their other crooks $50.00 per person to bombard Mass with their corruption and man handling them down on the sidewalks like she did that reporter the other day. The Democratic Politicians have gotten ugly, corrupt, and rotten to the core. They feel like they can physcially attack decent people and buy anything they want. I wonder how many ACORN and SEIU people are illegally voting when they don't even live there? I sure hope somebody is watching the henhouse besides the crooks who are making a mockery out of elections and the citizens of this country. Hell, linking Brown to Sarah Palin is a good think. Linking any politician to Palin is an honor. I find it funny that they are sending Bill Clinton there especially after the news that he is still having a long time affair with someone even now and could care less about what is really going on in this country like always. He's is not an asset. He is though still a liability. I sure hope Brown wins. There might be hope for this country yet if that occurs. Coakley thinks because her big elite contributors raised her the most money she can buy this election. It is a sad day in this country when we allow our politicians to buy their way in, instead of earning it through trust.

Posted by: joanne38 | January 14, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

THE WAR FOR SUPPORT OF THE PLEBS

Once again I speak truth in saying:
If you are a Democratic supporter of this Congress, your brain works so minimally without any sort of sense, responsibility or intuition that you should simply be quiet to avoid making yourselves look any stupider and out of touch with reality.

If you're a Republican still supporting the cronies of your party blindly, you too lack the sense, responsiblity or intuition required for anyone to take a single word you say seriously.

Yet, all of you bicker back and forth, degrading one another with half truths, misinformed or misused "facts" and things you heard from random people who also had no clue.

While you bicker and argue about nonsense, the liars and thieves who hold dominion over us laugh and celebrate the fact that they have duped the American people into absolute division based upon political ideology rather than anything real, such as the overall good of our nation.

It seems no matter what the American people read, they learn nothing. We simply read and listen, not to understand the actual reality of the issue, but to reinforce our current opinions about the issue...which is the definition of ignorance, stupidity, idiocy, irresponsibility, irrationalism and mild retardation.

Our ancestors who built this land would be disgusted, repulsed and would probably sail for Europe if they could see how far we've fallen and the ignorant means and manner we have taken on our journey south.

Those who type here only to demean their opposing party are the exact epitome of those who divided themselves among the support of Gaius Julius Caesar and Gnaeus Pompey Magnus. The difference is, you people are too comfortable in your good lives or just too stupid or indifferent to realize that blood will soon follow...the people of Rome weren't so ignorant to reality. And just so you know, Caesar and Pompey fought over the LOVE OF THE PEOPLE, Caesar threatened Pompey's heights with the Plebians, and Pompey, in turn, made Caesar out to be a tyrant. What came next? Just watch the modern equivalent and see if history doesn't repeat itself once again.

In conclusion, we the people are the Plebians whom both parties seek support from. How far they will go to ensure or purchase our support is yet to be seen, however, there is no doubt that the POWER STRUGGLE WHICH WILL DOOM THIS NATION HAS BEGUN. Voting incumbents out will do nothing to deter it, as the incumbents sons, daughters and near-to-will cousins and in-laws will spring to these positions with great force, positioning themselves as the New Voice of America, taken directly from the Old Voice of America. The worst part is, the American people will buy that garbage and support it with all their hearts, simply hoping for good rather than opening their eyes to confront the evil.

Posted by: TheFreeMan | January 14, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Bad News: Obama will likely not be appearing in person in Mass. to promote Coakley's run.
Good News: Obama will be airing a commercial promoting Coakley's run.
At least us Conservatives can hope for some presidential poison from the 'One' to help the cause.
Go, lighter shade of Brown, Go!

Posted by: jahoby | January 14, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

leapin:

Did you hear the news that Obama and the Dems have decided to "exempt" the Cadilac-healthplans for UNIONS from any taxes. The rest of us with those level of healthplans will get a special tax ...

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I see jaxas (actually jackass) gets his usual leftist comments in no matter what article he posts under. Now he claims a great education in economics and whoopies for increased taxation in a time of economic trouble that leaves no room for most to buy anything but bare essentials and even is ruinous to people wanting to send charity to help in the sad state of affairs in Haiti.

Hey jax, stop tooting your own horn and maybe do a little something besides mouthing off all day long on news articles. Are you employed or are you so below taxable rates that you don't pay any and want to stick it to others who support your habits? Just asking.

Posted by: rmilitello | January 14, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Leapin, the only people getting a free lunch in this country is you wealthy conservatives who always whine until you get a big tax cut but gobble up government services like medicare, social security, public education, and disability!
Look. You want to make a statement about government? Go without the services government provides. For instance, this very internet you are using which began as a DOD program full subsidized by my tax dollars. If you don't believe in government, stay off the internet, the interstate highways and our public libraries. And stop using clear water that is clean because the federal government mandates it. And stop using flus toilets and build your own two-holer in your back yard. That is something you have the "freedom" to do. Let me know how your neighbors react to your use of your freedom to do that.
Posted by: jaxas70
------------------------------------------
Don’t be an extremist jaxas. You know conservatives believe in the legitimate, basic, limited functions of government and not the control freak government that we were warned about by the framers.

I personally don’t use a lot of government services and I receive a large tax burden.

Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

Elizabeth Edwards ain't exactly a saint either, if you know what I mean.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is screwed if you think the American people are going to elect republicans for doing nothing this past year your delusional this race in mass is a slam dunk for the dems, she will win by 15% points nice try obstructionist

Posted by: mernatti123 | January 14, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"John Edwards, Daniel Inouye , Barney Frank, on and on, ...it’s on both sides."

It is on both sides, but the Democrats do much less finger wagging. Edwards being a notable exception. Quite the scumbag.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 14, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

But, I am completely opposed to this insanity on the right of having politicians sign absolutist pledges never to raise taxes! Ever!

Posted by: jaxas70 |
------------------------------------------
Praytell, what are you going to do when it gets to 100% of income. I'm waiting for an absolutist pledge to never increase spending again. Ever!

Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Actually I think the Republicans started nationalizing this race, but these are great observations by Chris. It is my belief that the liberal wing of the democratic party is very down about the centrist road that Obama has taken. They are about 40% of the party but about 60% of the activist in the party. They feel they have been abandoned by the party as the party moves to the center (on healthcare, no single payer, no public option and no tax on the high incomes) Now they are waking up the fact that they could lose the Bay State if they do not get to work. I am expecting Coakley to win by at least 7% because the liberal activist were pouting and not working to get the vote out. Move-on has raised $750k this week and expect them to be calling Democratic voters in MA from all over the country.

If I was a Republican I would not be upset with Coakley by 7%... I would spin it as a victory. I think anything less than 10% shows considerable Republican progress from last year at this time.

Posted by: bradcpa | January 14, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

i agree koolkat, the sewage here is too deep. but if chris wants to be fox's point man on the WaPo, this is what he will get.

I wonder if he thinks 'democrap statism' is 'dialogue'? i guess it is, if you're 3.

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Leapin, the only people getting a free lunch in this country is you wealthy conservatives who always whine until you get a big tax cut but gobble up government services like medicare, social security, public education, and disability!

Look. You want to make a statement about government? Go without the services government provides. For instance, this very internet you are using which began as a DOD program full subsidized by my tax dollars. If you don't believe in government, stay off the internet, the interstate highways and our public libraries. And stop using clear water that is clean because the federal government mandates it. And stop using flus toilets and build your own two-holer in your back yard. That is something you have the "freedom" to do. Let me know how your neighbors react to your use of your freedom to do that.

Posted by: jaxas70 | January 14, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton would crush each and every GOOPer from Sarah Palin to Newt Gingrich to Mittens Romney to anyone named Bush. He'd smoke them like Monica smoked... This is a fact, folks.

Obviously that popularity doesn't translate to his wife, but the fact remains.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 14, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Thanks koolkat. I take that as a compliment coming from you.

You whiners can't have the board all to yourself.

Posted by: RobParker | January 14, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Virtually every Repubilican caught in a sex scandal since Bill Clinton took office has a long history of family values, moralistic public statements. Ensign, Vitter, Sanford, Dan Burton, Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Bob Livingston, Larry Craig, Helen Chenoweth, Vito "Two Families" Fossella, Mark Foley.. the list is endless.


Posted by: koolkat_1960
----------------------------------------

John Edwards, Daniel Inouye , Barney Frank, on and on, ...it’s on both sides.

Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The board is officially in the crapper. Robbie Parker has arrived.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 14, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

OK Chris


drindl at 1:47 Another ad hominem attack

Chris you really have to BAN drindl now.

This is completely out of control.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Massachusetts political crimes again Democracy:

1. Changing the law (again) to permite governor Deval Patrick (D) to name as interim senator Paul Kird (D) last September instead of waiting for the people to vote.

2. Kirk (D) who pledged to stay neutral in the election, breaking his promise and endorsing Martha Coakley (D)

3. Now that it looks like Martha Coakley (D) is going to lose the election, announcing that they will drag their feet and not seat Sen. Scott Brown (R).

The corruption of one-party Massachusetts knows no bounds.

Posted by: screwjob11 | January 14, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Chris is on Andrea Mitchell .... again


Does Alan know about all this time you have been spending with her?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Look Harleyj, I'm on your side. That is precisely my point. The right wing and the mainstream media seem to be salivating over the prospect that Coakley will either lose or at least win by a narrow margin thus giving the GOP a moral victory. And the only way that can happen is if a majority of the electorate does not vote. It is an insult to our electoral process.

And my economic education is precisely in the are aof economics. I have a Masters degree in that subject and a Bachelor of Science in Political Science. I am not boasting because even the most educated economists will tell you that no one has ever really mastered economics otherwise we wouldn't be in the trouble we are in.

But I do know this: You cannot have a philosophy that says you can never, ever raise taxes. Taxes are the necessary evil consequent to the social contract. Without taxes, there is no government. Without government there is no civilization. Without civilization, there is anarchy and the rule of the beast.

The question of taxes and their utility is a political question for most rational people. But not for the right. They want a purity test that fundamentally says no tax increases ever again. That's crazy! Look. I am all for tax reform and a fairer method for raising revenues and I am all for a more rational philosophy on how much the the government ought to spend and what it should spend our money on.

But, I am completely opposed to this insanity on the right of having politicians sign absolutist pledges never to raise taxes! Ever!

Posted by: jaxas70 | January 14, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I think it's a great idea to bring Ol' Billy BJ in to help. He's the model Democrat. Getting blown by his intern was much more important than managing the country. While he played, the largest corporate frauds were perpetrated, the stock market bubbled boiled over and the 9/11 terrorists were learning to fly in the US and our military was growing weaker by the day.

Yep. He's da man!

Posted by: RobParker | January 14, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"Would Mark Sanford, and Ensign qualified as wrapping themselves in family values?
I would agreed by their actions and the statements after being caught with their pants down."

Virtually every Repubilican caught in a sex scandal since Bill Clinton took office has a long history of family values, moralistic public statements. Ensign, Vitter, Sanford, Dan Burton, Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Bob Livingston, Larry Craig, Helen Chenoweth, Vito "Two Families" Fossella, Mark Foley.. the list is endless.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 14, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

If Obama heads to Massachussetts, count on a Republican victory and the death of any and all Democratic legislations.

Politically thinking, the Democrats understand this fact, which is why they are sending Bill Clinton to pander to the people rather than Obama.

The only good thing that can come of this special election is a Democratic defeat coupled with the imminent death of THIS PARTICULAR MOCKERY OF HEALTH CARE REFORM.

Maybe once the Democrats are defeated in a state where they OWN the vote, they will realize that they were not elected with a BLANK CHECK to enforce their own wills, but rather as a check and balance to the Republican corruption and abuse that we lived in for the previous eight years.
The Democrats have proved that they are not a check, nor a balance, but rather another group of liars and thieves who will say and do anything to exact their will upon the nation.
37% public support for this criminal health bill as they race to Massachussetts to ensure a Democratic victory and to maintain their voting majority in both chambers.

So, I ask again, in what way are Democrats and Republicans different other than their stances on abortion, gay marriage and immigration?

Very rhetorical question as the answer is obvious.

Posted by: TheFreeMan | January 14, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Indeed, Osama Bin Laden polls higher in this country than Beck, Limbaugh, Palin and Gingrich. Highest approvals are reserved for Michelle Obama and Colin Powell. Indeed, even among republicans--who are lower than sewer water right now--the more you move leftward in their ranks, the higher their approval. Both John McCain and Lindsay Graham poll higher with the American people in general than they do with their own party.

You right wing howlers can squall all you want but the truth is that conservatism--particularly the farther right you go--is not very popular among the people when you identify specifically just what policies conservatives believe in--which, when it comes to government, is exactly squat.

Posted by: jaxas70 | January 14, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

___________________________________________

F-ing liberal whiner!!

Typical response from someone so delusional that they can't see that their party is going to get raked over the coals because the majority of the people don't want what they're selling.

That's why Beck and Limbaugh are more popular than ever and their programs have more listeners/viewers the CNN/CNBC and the major liberal networks combined.

Yep. Keep telling yourself that. Only you quacknut liberals believe your own drivel.

Posted by: RobParker | January 14, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Really is amazing how much the dialogue coming from the right hasn't changed since the fascism of the 30s. Exactly the same stuff, in the same words. Just substitute 'liberals' for 'Jews.'

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"No self-respecting conservative would join a "Nationalist Socialist" party."

Right, fool. And the Democratic Republic of Germany was democratic. Germans and Republicans both specialize in the Big Lie.

You should have kept your cakehole shut on this one, but you seem incapable of ever doing that.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 14, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone really think it is a good idea to bring the person who CAUSED THE MESS IN 1994 to come in and try to save Coakley ???

It just seems like the wrong direction.


And poor judgement.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

You're right, shrink -- if I want to know what this blog is going to know about in advance, I just check with what's the lede on Fox. Always the same...

But it's an easy way to check the Beltway CW for the day.

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

is not very popular among the people when you identify specifically just what policies conservatives believe in--which, when it comes to government, is exactly squat.

Posted by: jaxas70
-------------------------------------------
Yes, less government is not as popular as the "free lunch".

Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"Bringing in Bill Clinton tomorrow should help in that effort..."

Brown's prayers are being answered. More establishment Democrats flying to MA, the more the anger's going to be (just like in NJ). Coakley should be distancing herself from the DC crowd. This might just clinch it for Brown.

Posted by: NoWeCant | January 14, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I take issue with your characterization of Coakley's "flagging" campaign. What evidence do you have other than a couple of automated polls whose reliability has come under fire by more reputable pollsters?

I honestly believe that you and other mainstream media types have entered into a sort of tacit synergistic relationship with the right wing noise machine and--like Stephanopoulos was shown on video doing in the 2008 campaign from Sean Hannity--simply acting as a stenographer for their propaganda.

What is irksome about this is the "steamroller" effect such media fabricated narratives take on. Such tactics worked for Goebbels in Nazi Germany in the 20s and 30s because once reputable news organs would do just the same thing you media people are doing right now--hyping inaccurate polls that are recited over and over until it has the effect of actually changing public perception.

I don't like it and I am not the only one. A lot of people on the left are beginning to smell this big nasty rat. It is the smell of a deal inside the media--a deal with the devil. YOur blog is aptly named THE FIX. It certainly appears you and others in the media have the fix in for the GOP.

Posted by: jaxas70 | January 14, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if "nationalizing the election" is the right phrase.

Coakley wants to create an issue that will work in her favor.

"Nationalizing the election" means talking about health care, which will only help Scott Brown and drive the anti-Obama vote to the polls.

Another poster here had excellent points that Massachusetts has already had its version of health care reform, with massive increases for the middle class.


The democrats are so tone-deaf right now - they have not listened to the other side - so they have no idea what will motivate the other side and what will not.

OUCH OUCH OUCH OUCH OUCH


The truth is that Massachusetts is extremely difficult, and that fact that the race is even at this point is a horrible, horrible tale to tell for Obama and his health care plan.


The fall elections are going to be difficult for the democrats.

REMEMBER ONE THING: The entire democratic strategy has been all year to get health care done quickly - so the democrats can change the subject and voters will forget by the elections in Nov.

This is not going to happen - the democrats made a serious mistake in thinking that they could jam something down the throats of America and then change the subject in time for the elections.


Obama is completely out of step with America - and he is out of touch with reality.

Obama released terrorists to Yemen right before the latest attempted attack - how clueless can one be?

Obama is hopeless. Even if his advisors could figure out what he could do now, he probably will not listen to them.

,

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Jaxas70, If the majority of qualified voters in Massachusetts votes, Coackly would win in a walk away...but then leave it to someone like you to do the Bill O"Reilly spin. Now, what do you have to say?

Over all, why in the hell would anyone want to hand the government back over to a party that caused "The Great Recession" with their laissez faire permissive policies toward Wall Street & wanton & virtually complete redistribution of the nations wealth from the working poor and the middle class--the consumer base--to the plutocrats and oligarchs? That is exactly what Bush/Cheney did and they did in on purpose with great verve. Nixon tried; Ford couldn't; Reagan got it going; Bush1 kept it going; Bush2 got it done. When you cripple the consumer base, you cause them not be able to buy goods and services and, thus, the spiraling unemployment spirals some more. I could go on but I suspect you couldn't grasp basic economics.

Posted by: harleyj | January 14, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Blarg said...

"This is the 8th post this week about the MA Senate election. It's the 4th today. I know there isn't much going on in the political world, but maybe you can find another topic. Or post less frequently if there's nothing interesting to say."

Actually there is lots of interesting political news, but this is a Republican Rising! site.

That is why it went on day after day about Obama being personally responsible for the underwear bomber, then days and days of race baiting using Reid's vulnerability as a foil and now this.

This site has two purposes (1)fly paper for Drudge trolls* and (2)dysfunctional social networking, which means people use the site to bicker for personal reasons.

The good news for the WaPo and Chris Cillizza, is that it is working. The clicks
would be way less than they are now if he concentrated on wonky political stuff a person could not find well collected and collated anywhere else.

So you'll get a steady diet of Massachusetts, just like with Reid calling Obama a negro and wingnuts calling Obama soft on terror...until Fox changes the subject.


*Noacoler's funny

Posted by: shrink2 | January 14, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

'No self-respecting conservative would join a "Nationalist Socialist" party.'

No, but you would join a 'Tea Party' -- and there's no difference between the two -- only that the object of your hatred is different.

Posted by: drindl
------------------------------------------
Do you mean the NeoCom statism of you, Barrack Obama, and associates?

Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Look. You miserable little rodents on the right can squeak, snivel, sniff, boob, hiss, titter, squawk prick, sip, mumble, bumble blubber and howl like dingos at the moon about Clinton and Obama all you want but, whenever they are polled for approval they consistently outpoll any of the conservatives you put up against them. They are always in the high 50s and 60s in approval while most of these sempering snots on the right consistently wallow in the 20s and 30s.

Indeed, Osama Bin Laden polls higher in this country than Beck, Limbaugh, Palin and Gingrich. Highest approvals are reserved for Michelle Obama and Colin Powell. Indeed, even among republicans--who are lower than sewer water right now--the more you move leftward in their ranks, the higher their approval. Both John McCain and Lindsay Graham poll higher with the American people in general than they do with their own party.

You right wing howlers can squall all you want but the truth is that conservatism--particularly the farther right you go--is not very popular among the people when you identify specifically just what policies conservatives believe in--which, when it comes to government, is exactly squat.

Posted by: jaxas70 | January 14, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

. Bill Clinton never stepped up and provided put forth regulation on Wall Street or the banks. Enron went down on Clinton’s watch. Clinton did nothing, Bush did nothing and Obama is doing as little as possible.

Posted by: nancykulka
----------
I think you are incorrect Enron went down on Bush's watch after all he signed the Sarbane-Oxley legislation quietly as a result of it.
Clinton had people in his adminstration who are opposed to regulation: Robert Rubin, Larry Summers and lastly Reagan appointed Chairman of the Fed Alan Greenspan.
As a matter of fact Brookley Born was a chairperson of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission who warned about the impending "weapon of mass financial destruction" back in 1996 and wanted regulation but was thwarted by these guys and guess who Obama put as Economic advisors- Larry Summers. You can chaulk that up to financial donation to get what they wanted. We are seeing the same thing happening. The CEOs would meet with Obama but their lobbyists would lobby Congress to short circuit the process.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

The truth:

'Brown is apparently referring to a quote by Sen. Paul Kirk (D-MA) in a local tabloid called the Boston Herald. Kirk had noted that the health reform bill would likely pass in January, and if it were up for a vote while he is still in office, he would “absolutely” vote for it.

ThinkProgress contacted the Massachusetts Secretary of State office for comment on Brown’s theory that officials are conspiring to refuse to seat him immediately after the election on January 19th. Brian McNiff, a spokesman for the Secretary of State, called Brown’s remarks “nuts.” He then explained that by law, election officials must wait 10 days after the election for military and overseas ballots. Also, by law, an additional five days (totaling 15 after the election) are required for cities and towns to verify and report ballots. Responding to a question about Brown’s conspiracy theory, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said, “That is the stupidest thing I’ve been asked in a long time. That is insane, the suggestion could only come from a demented right wing source.”

Characterizing Brown’s opposition to health reform, energy reform, and trying the 9/11 plotters in a civillian court, a withering Boston Globe editorial yesterday called out the candidate for his “misleading” and “unsubstantiated” assertions. It should be noted, however, that Brown is not only lying about policy, but is concocting up a Glenn Beck-style conspiracy to falsely accuse officials of manipulating the election.'

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Martha, all I can say is "keep your head up".

Posted by: pytsq
-----------------------------------------
Please keep the sexual innuendo off of the blog. Thank You

Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Brown and nutso conspiracy theory:

State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), the Republican candidate running for the special election in Massachusetts next week, has been campaigning for the last several days telling crowds an odd conspiracy theory. Brown is alleging that state officials, including the Secretary of State’s office, are devising a plot to deny Brown’s election certification, if he wins, until after health reform passes:

BROWN: The latest development is Senator Kirk, the interim senator which we manipulated senate the succession issue to make sure that we had that 60th vote to kind of ram things through, well he announced today that he’s not resigning and that the Secretary of State thinks he needs to wait until every single ballot is counted and recounted and triply counted, and they’re not going to certify me until after the healthcare debate. Now, you know what that does, that makes me sick to my stomach. [...] We called on her [Martha Coakley] to stand up to the manipulation of another vote in Washington. We’ve called on her tonight to stand up and say ‘no, no, whoever wins, you certify them right away.’

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

'No self-respecting conservative would join a "Nationalist Socialist" party.'

No, but you would join a 'Tea Party' -- and there's no difference between the two -- only that the object of your hatred is different.

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

jaxas@1259, the other thing that amazes me is how we hear endlessly about the governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, but never a peep about the FIVE straight congressional special elections the Democrats have won this year. FIVE.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 14, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

jaxas -- agreed. i have never seen more repugnant comments than on here the last few days. these are folks who would have relished the hate-fueled fascism of the 30s. it's a shame to see them in america today. but of course, we saw this during the mccarthy era, as well. perhaps this poison too can be purged.

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Coakley is in QUICKSAND - THE MORE SHE MOVES, THE MORE SHE SINKS.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"Folks,

Just wanted to let you know that I am well aware that some of the people we have banned for bad behavior are back under different names.

I have checked with our IT people and aside from banning people by username AND IP address there isn't much else we can do.

If someone is committed to commenting -- and disrupting -- the only way we as a community can truly stop it is by a) ignoring them and/or b) shaming them into better behavior.

I continue to be amazed by the fact that these people, who profess to hate me and the blog so virulently, go to such lengths to ensure they can keep returning to the blog.

Thanks to everyone who is working hard to abide by the rules and make the comments section a worthwhile endeavor.

Thanks,
Chris"

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | January 7, 2010 11:46 AM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/-1-2-3-a17-democrats-lose-majority-in-poll.html

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

What a sorry, miserable lot you are! Hitler would love the likes of you!

Posted by: jaxas70
-----------------------------------
No self-respecting conservative would join a "Nationalist Socialist" party.

Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Martha, all I can say is "keep your head up".

Posted by: pytsq | January 14, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

nancykulka:

Haven't you heard? In their Alternative Reality, Bill Clinton was NEVER IMPEACHED. I guess GWB wasn't President either, and Al Gore single-handedly defeated global warming AND terrorism. Funny that any Democrat should have to worry about getting elected at all ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I remember when we used to call it lying, and it was regarded as shameful.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Barney Frank wasn't married at the time. And he wasn't wrapping himself in family values.

Posted by: koolkat_1960
----
Would Mark Sanford, and Ensign qualified as wrapping themselves in family values?
I would agreed by their actions and the statements after being caught with their pants down.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

What sort of political party or ideology considers it a victory if they can win an election by hoping and praying that a majority of voters in the other party or ideology stays home? What sort of a victory is it if winning depends ona majority of voters not participating?

Some of you on this blog throw around words like "corruption", "cynicism", "moral decay" and the like. Yet how corrupt is it, how cynical is it, and how morally decadent is it to hope and pray that the majority of the people in a state or country who do not agree with your lazy, ignorant, anti-government, nihilist philosophy, will stay home and let your silly, dumbed down, racist, anti-intellectual band of racists sneak in and take the seat?

What have you won? What has been validated about your ideology? Look. The truth is that the right wing in this country is morally, politically and ideologically bereft of any nobility, of any altruism, of any rationality. For you people, it is all about winning. You could care less about the nation's problems, about health care or the environment, poverty, education or anything else other than being able to use all of the benefits and services our country has to offer with paying for them.

What a sorry, miserable lot you are! Hitler would love the likes of you!

Posted by: jaxas70 | January 14, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

wtjoyce1956:

That's not what I heard.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2010/01/14/for_2d_straight_year_schools_chief_opts_out_of_pay_hike/

koolkat_1960:

Frank (unmarried) with same-sex hookers is way worse than Vitter (married) with opposite-sex hookers.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

It is so funny to see the Democrats scramble against Scott Brown. I thought Massachusetts was considered a safe blue state. It would be a miracle if Brown won but it is so interesting to watch the Democratic smear machine kick into gear.

Posted by: dpunty | January 14, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

According to a new poll, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is in position to dash the hopes of Republicans hoping to pick up Sen. Chris Dodd's (D) seat this year. The popular Blumenthal defeats all major GOP contenders for the seat by huge margins in a new poll from Quinnipiac University, a result that highlights the political difficulties for Dodd that led to his decision not to seek reelection.

In the poll's hypothetical matchups, Blumenthal defeats the front-runner in the GOP primary for the seat, former Rep. Rob Simmons, 62-27. Blumenthal leads self-funder Linda McMahon, who's running behind Simmons in the GOP primary race according to the Q poll, 64-23.

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Two comments on Chris' board today -- it's hard to know which is worse, the stupidity or the hate/racism. Or maybe it's the combination that makes it so toxic/vomitous.


"Also Planned Parenthood as this organization goes into the Public Schools and give young girls low dose birth control pills so they will become pregnant
then they take them for an abortion many times without the parents permission"


"Today ALIPAC is outraged because America has temporarily halted extradition of illegal Haitians due to the earthquake. Thank God (the white Christian one) for these American Heroes."

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

If Bill Clinton is the left's idea of a popular leader, then who needs enemies?

Bill Clinton pulled off his presidency by being personable and because the economy was doing well at that time. But, once people figured out what NAFTA was, Bill's popularity mostly went down the toilet. Bill Clinton never stepped up and provided put forth regulation on Wall Street or the banks. Enron went down on Clinton’s watch. Clinton did nothing, Bush did nothing and Obama is doing as little as possible but is being pressured due to an election year and people slowly figuring it all out. I guess losing ones home and can't find a job makes people wonder what's going on.

Sadly, the media machine preys on people’s ignorance, and if there's one thing there's no shortage of in America, it's ignorance. Bill Clinton is a corporatist. This Haiti deal is just another way to bilk and rob people of their money. Some American's will send money to Haiti, but not to those being murdered in the Middle East. Go figure. They'll give $10 Haiti but not to the Salvation Army. American's are dying in our own streets, freezing and starving to death, yet people are so stupid they'll get behind Clinton! You might just as well get behind Farwell and call him a good guy.

I do feel very sorry for the people of Haiti, but as American's we should stay away and let the corporations pay for this. Bill Clinton has plenty of wealthy friends who I’m sure owe him, let Bill call out to his friends, not the nation.

Posted by: nancykulka | January 14, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jaxas70

---
Your comment is eloquent and right on. Like I said wait until all the votes are cast and counted. Then, dissecting can begin.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Boston would bring "GREAT SHAME" upon itself if it voted and elected a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy seat, it would be saying to all American, Kennedy didn't matter, his acheivements didn't matter, and that being a "PROUD LIBERAL DEMOCRAT no longer matters, only who has the most money, matters, that's what Ma. would be allowing if a Republican wins Ted's seat.

Sincerely, Tommy Birchfield, Voter/Vet USAF, Kenndey Supporter, Proud Liberal Democrat
Graduate Student, Masters Program
Professional Studies,
EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY
CLASS/2010

Posted by: ztcb41 | January 14, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Who knew Chrissy foxys real name was Scott Ritter.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 14, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

If MA elects Brown, I will officially end my boycott of Boston. It will be wonderful news too, since we are moving to CT in May.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Don't do us any favors.

We haven't even noticed your "boycott" here in Boston and have been doing just fine without you.

Posted by: wtjoyce1956 | January 14, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

"koolkat_1960:

At least he wasn't involved with same-sex hookers like Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA).

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse"

Barney Frank wasn't married at the time. And he wasn't wrapping himself in family values.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 14, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

There is several meanings for impeached:
1 a : to bring an accusation against b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office c : to remove from office especially for misconduct
2 : to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of

Koolkat and JakeD

Rereading the meaning in the frame of the Constitution, you are correct in terms of historical term equivalent "to be charged". I was basically referring to the fact he was not removed from office or not convicted.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

'If Coakley wins this race by 15 points, the media--Chris included--will still insist that it is a victory for the right. I do not recall a time when the media has been so transparently biased in favor of a particular political group than they are with this tea party bunch.'

Agreed, jaxas, or he will post what we are already seeing on here from the wingers -- their whining that somehow it's all the boogeyman ACORN's fault.

All of a sudden the narrative is, 'can Bill Clinton SAVE Martha Coakely?

HUH?

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

allenridge writes
"Bottom line is the corrupt Democrat Party machine which include their pals in our left-wing press and mob-run Unions will do everything in their corrupt power to steal this election from the .......people."


But all the people in Marxachusettes are part of the left wing press or members of the mob run unions or corrupt democrat party machine. So it looks to me like the people are getting exactly what they want & the rest of us should butt out & worry about our own representatives.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for accurately describing the political shenanigans by state Democrats over Ted Kennedy's senate seat and how it is has angered and deeply offended many unenrolled (independent) voters like myself.

Posted by: pjsilva | January 14, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

'I am heartened in recalling that the run-up to elections typically draws more nuts to this site. I look forward to Wednesday, or maybe Thursday, when the schadenfreude has worn off & the nitwits have crawled back under the rocks from which they've recently come.'

I am sorry to say, bsimon, but the tone of the recent pieces is the reason these people are here. They are really pleased by what Chris is writing.

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Now here's a poll was some basis in reality -- Quinnepac, clean methodology:

According to a new poll, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is in position to dash the hopes of Republicans hoping to pick up Sen. Chris Dodd's (D) seat this year.

The popular Blumenthal defeats all major GOP contenders for the seat by huge margins in a new poll from Quinnipiac University, a result that highlights the political difficulties for Dodd that led to his decision not to seek reelection.

In the poll's hypothetical matchups, Blumenthal defeats the front-runner in the GOP primary for the seat, former Rep. Rob Simmons, 62-27. Blumenthal leads self-funder Linda McMahon, who's running behind Simmons in the GOP primary race according to the Q poll, 64-23."

Bet you don't see it on this blog.

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

FULL DISCLOSURE:

"A few examples from the recent Boston Globe poll -- released Sunday -- that showed Coakley with a comfortable double-digit lead"

......The Boston Globe, like the Washington POST, is a corrupt left-wing political paper that is owned by the even more corrupt NYTimes........... so the poll is probably cooked, simliar to what the POST does too.

WHY ? isn't Bill Clinton in Haiti? Unbelievable that he would spend time with the elite rich out-of-touch Coakley and not working on relief efforts.

Bottom line is the corrupt Democrat Party machine which include their pals in our left-wing press and mob-run Unions will do everything in their corrupt power to steal this election from the .......people.

Posted by: allenridge | January 14, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

This is a perfect example of how the media is driving this race in Massachusetts. The first poll that opened up this question was a Rasmussen poll. It is curious that Rasmussen also used an automated poll to raise questions about the New York race that turned Hoffman into a national figure.

The thing that is interesting about all of this is the mainstream media's role in hyping polls that have little or no reliability. Right up until the election in November we were being told by the media that Hoffmann was going to win it for Sarah Palin.

Now here we go again in this Senate election. The one constant in all of this is the willingness of the mainstream media and with analysts like Chris Cillizza to carry water for the republicans and the right wing. Even after Hoffman lost decisively in New York, the mainstream media refused to acknowledge how wrong they were.

If Coakley wins this race by 15 points, the media--Chris included--will still insist that it is a victory for the right. I do not recall a time when the media has been so transparently biased in favor of a particular political group than they are with this tea party bunch. It is clear that they are rooting for right wing candidates that Palin, Beck and Limbaugh support.

Posted by: jaxas70 | January 14, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I am heartened in recalling that the run-up to elections typically draws more nuts to this site. I look forward to Wednesday, or maybe Thursday, when the schadenfreude has worn off & the nitwits have crawled back under the rocks from which they've recently come.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

At least he wasn't involved with same-sex hookers like Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA).

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

But blarg -- management is having such a good time trashing Democrats, over and over!

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"MA is going to cheat anyway they can so they can screw the rest of America by getting that 60th healthcare vote."

Here's the fallback position, folks.

If Coakley loses, it's because people reject Obama.

If Coakley wins, it's because the boogeyman ACORN cheated.

Got that now? Just so you're prepared.

Posted by: drindl | January 14, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

This is the 8th post this week about the MA Senate election. It's the 4th today. I know there isn't much going on in the political world, but maybe you can find another topic. Or post less frequently if there's nothing interesting to say.

Posted by: Blarg | January 14, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

"JakeD - Do you mean they are broadening their horizons beyond the sex trade?


Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse"

Sen. David Vitter, R-Diapers, is Congress's foremost sex trade expert, being a participant.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 14, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Oh, how I wish the Republicans would win. Even in Kennedy's home state, voters are not happy with health care reform.

Posted by: kathy26
---------------
If I am not mistaken, the MA voters want to keep their health care in current form. According one poll, 79% want to keep it when asked if they want to repeal it

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

MA is going to cheat anyway they can so they can screw the rest of America by getting that 60th healthcare vote.

Posted by: FLvet | January 14, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"beeker25:

YOU just admitted that Bill Clinton was "impeached"!!! I think the word you are looking for is that he was not "convicted".

JakeD
Reread what I said: The House VOTED to impeach but the Senate FAILED to CONVICT thus Clinton was not impeached and was ABLE to SERVE out his term- NOT removed from office. Reread the Constitution on such proceeding you will find it that I am right."

beeker, I hate to agree with the idiot jaked, but he is correct (for once). Clinton was impeached - by the kangaroo court House, true -- but still impeached. This is a historical fact. "Impeached" is the equivalent of being "charged."

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 14, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

I wish Brown would win, but methinks the Demoncraps will never let it happen. An old saying in Moscow: "It's not important who votes. It's important who counts the votes."

I'll be ACORN volunteers will be busy organizing their electorate.

Posted by: tjhall1 | January 14, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

OK, fine, Bill Clinton was NOT "impeached" and Martha Coakley will be "elected" in your little fantasy world.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Coakley and the democrats are in QUICKSAND - THE MORE THEY MOVE, THE MORE THEY SINK.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

beeker25:

YOU just admitted that Bill Clinton was "impeached"!!! I think the word you are looking for is that he was not "convicted".

JakeD
Reread what I said: The House VOTED to impeach but the Senate FAILED to CONVICT thus Clinton was not impeached and was ABLE to SERVE out his term- NOT removed from office. Reread the Constitution on such proceeding you will find it that I am right.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

OK Let me get this right


THE DSCC IS PUTTING SCOTT BROWN'S CAMPAIGN THEME ON ITS COMMERCIALS ????

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

If the democrats fuel the idea that the election is all about Obama's health care plan, this election will "make history" - for boneheadedness.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 14, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Oh, how I wish the Republicans would win. Even in Kennedy's home state, voters are not happy with health care reform.

Obama and Democrats are taxing this country over a cliff. I can't wait for November elections to get here.

Posted by: kathy26 | January 14, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

So the media really thinks this race is over? The "flagging" Coakley is trailing by double digits and cannot be saved? Oh wait, that's Scott Brown trailing by double digits in the polls...

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

Posted by: parkerfl1 | January 14, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Even if the Republican candidate loses in Mass., it's a success. It forced the Democrap Socialist Party and their Union goon Communist Workers Parties to spend millions of dollars to keep what was once consitered a "safe" seat.

Posted by: armpeg
----------
I will have add the Republicans to list as well more like the teabaggers and the finge groups because it is said both sides not just one side.

Again, retreading Republican propaganda points.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

tjhall1:

If MA elects Brown, I will officially end my boycott of Boston. It will be wonderful news too, since we are moving to CT in May.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I see that you used the word "convict" too. Not sure what your misunderstanding is then : )

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Simply delicious...that Chappaquiddick's old seat in Taxachusettes is vulnerable to a Republican takeover...God, my prayers have been answered. I bet that fat murderer is turning in his grave. Haw!

Posted by: tjhall1 | January 14, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

beeker25:

YOU just admitted that Bill Clinton was "impeached"!!! I think the word you are looking for is that he was not "convicted".

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

"Brown is an incredibly superficial candidate who's banking on the combination of good looks and a willingness to say whatever people want to hear to get elected."

Wow, eerily similar to Obama
----------
Sounds like Rubio as well....don't thank me for that.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

leapin:

I think by "nationalizing" the MA election, he means that pResident Obama federalizes the ACORN "troops".

LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD
----------------------------------------
JakeD - Do you mean they are broadening their horizons beyond the sex trade?

Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Trying to make coakley look good by posing her with an impeached president. Brilliant!


Posted by: ItsOver2
---------
Incorrect, although Clinton was impeached in the House, but the Senate failed to convict him of the charges (spurious, I might add). Thus he was able to serve out his term. In practical term he was never impeached because he was not removed from office.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"Brown is an incredibly superficial candidate who's banking on the combination of good looks and a willingness to say whatever people want to hear to get elected."

Wow, eerily similar to Obama.

Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

leapin:

I think by "nationalizing" the MA election, he means that pResident Obama federalizes the ACORN "troops".

LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Politic is local not national. Both parties are using the election as referendum of their respective parties' positions.
I have seen it three or four times over the last few months so far. The real thing will be when the votes are cast and counted will determine the winner.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 14, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Trying to make coakley look good by posing her with an impeached president. Brilliant!

Posted by: ItsOver2 | January 14, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

By nationalizing do you mean sending in the vote fraud teams?

Posted by: leapin | January 14, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Even if the Republican candidate loses in Mass., it's a success. It forced the Democrap Socialist Party and their Union goon Communist Workers Parties to spend millions of dollars to keep what was once consitered a "safe" seat.

Posted by: armpeg | January 14, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Whilst I believe that a republican winner, if permitted by Congress to participate in the health care vote, could frustrate the health care bill, I hope it does not come down that way, even though I believe the bill should be defeated.

It would also be a gas, if President Bill Clinton becomes the influence that pushes the democratic candidate to victory. But that would be ironical, if the Clinton reported comment to Kennedy about the 'bringing of coffee' is true. But if it is, then Kennedy, possibly, lied to the American people about his reason for supporting Obama; it appears it was to frustrate Clinton. However, if Kennedy were alive today, I wonder if he would have approved of the manner in which the passage of this bill is being accomplished through activities that resemble bribes and concessions all over the place.

Posted by: CalP | January 14, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

pgr88:

WOW!!! Who is reporting that?

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

I won't count on it until I see it, but I wonder if there'll be a real journalist there who'll ask Bill Clinton what he meant when he told Ted Kennedy that: "A few years ago, this guy (Obama) would have been getting us coffee", as reported in the just released book "Game Change", by John Heliemann and Mark Halperin.
I'm betting that the entire Main Stream Media's jounalists, pundits, and talking heads, who'd crucify any Republican for saying something like this, will all act like the 3 monkeys on this--hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil. No wonder most intelligent people are turning to Fox for their news. It's the only place they'll hear both sides of every issue without the censorship the rest of the Democrap Socialist Party--controlled Main Stream Medias spin-control.

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

That the SEIU, Big Pharma and insurance lobbyists are all pouring so many $$$$ into ads for Coakley speaks volumes about Obamacare.

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

She has about as much a chance of losing as I do winning the lottery. It ain't going to happen, she'll "win."

Posted by: djudge1 | January 14, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"What lame excuses will liberals make for this close shave?"

They won't be making excuses, McNumbnutz. They'll be passing health care reform whether you wingnuts like it or not.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 14, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I am from Boston (I don't miss it) and find the stereotype of lock step support of Dems amusing. Massachusetts regularly vote for Republican governors (Sargent, Volpe, Romney) and occassionally senators (Brooke). Mass voters are more like the rest of America than is usually credited.

Posted by: pirate1 | January 14, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Hey Martha,
Nice job putting an innocent family in jail.

For all you youngsters out there. Here's THE reason why Martha Coakley is
unfit for U.S. Senator. She is also unfit to hold her current position.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-14537-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner~y2009m9d4-Involvement-in-Amirault-case-makes-Martha-Coakley-unfit-to-replace-Ted-Kennedy-as-Senator

Posted by: ANTILIB | January 14, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

And we just learned that in CLOSED meetings, the Democrats have caved to public unions. Union "cadillac" health-care plans will be exempt from tax, but everyone else's will be. You won't read it in WaPo.

Coakley is just another apparatchik in this dysfunctional machine. She, and what she represents, are repulsive.

Posted by: pgr88 | January 14, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

geez, Chris, I'm not sure the Poll is saying what you say it says.

Coakley has a 17% lead among all voters, but you point at her 6% lead among undeclared voters? Are you expecting the undeclared voters to turn out in a much larger % than you expect Democrats to vote? isn't it usually the party die hards who turn out?

Further down in the poll results we see that Coakley pulls some of her best numbers in the over 50 crowd, where she leads by 24 and 25%. It seems to me I've heard somewhere that older folks vote in higher numbers than younger folks -- not that she's suffering in her numbers for the under 35 crowd. Golly, she leads by 39 points there.

In fact, when I look over all the numbers on page 15 of the Boston Globe poll, Coakley leads in ALL categories except her numbers with Republicans. It is true, Coakley is not attracting a lot of Republican votes (but then, Brown is not attracting very many more Democrats).

Thanks for linking to the Poll.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 14, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Brown is an incredibly superficial candidate who's banking on the combination of good looks and a willingness to say whatever people want to hear to get elected. His campaign has essentially refused to acknowledge that any difficult choices exist in governance, which I find incredibly tiresome. Not surprisingly, the tea party crowd is behind him, because they know he'd be a reliable Republican vote, so all he has to do is fool some independents and hope the Democrats don't show up and he could have a real shot at winning.

If MA voters wake up and realize that this is a determinative vote between the national Republican agenda and the national Democratic agenda, Coakley will win. But who knows, maybe they'll be suckers. You can't predict.

Posted by: jeffwacker | January 14, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

psssssssttt..bill clinton

if you run into obama trying to salvage this race

do NOT rpeeat your statement to ted kennedy that years ago you would be sending obama out for coffee

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 14, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

Unless there's a blizzard Tuesday ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that supporters of the president should recognize how high the stakes are in the special Senate election in Massachusetts and in legislative battles on Capitol Hill. “There’s a lot at stake in the election in Massachusetts.”
Pressed on the idea that liberals seem less enthusiastic and less inspired than they were during the 2008 presidential campaign, Gibbs responded, “I didn’t dispute the premise.”
What? More transparency?

Posted by: jahoby | January 14, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Zouk writes
"His sole accomplishment in high office has Bern to turn Va and Nj red and now mass purple. Now that is certainly historical."


So his approval ratings are going up?


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Is this race not already nationalized, at least on the policy level? The basis for all Scott Brown's success thus far is a that voters, even in MA are strongly apposed to Health Care Reform. Bringing in Clinton or Ted Kennedy's family to bring attention to Coakley's support for a bill they hate isn't going to move voters.

Posted by: estuartj | January 14, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

What lame excuses will liberals make for this close shave? The repub ran ad a moderate, the same tired blather as last year. It does not reflect on Barry or democrats at all does it?

Barry is busy sucking money from banks again to cover his own utter failures. Starting to seem vampirish now.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 14, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
" the Globe poll suggests that Coakley's strength is inversely proportional to the level of interest voters have in the election. Among those who say they are either "somewhat" or "not very" interested in the race, Coakley holds a twenty-six point edge. Those who call themselves "very" interested go for Coakley 57 percent to 35 percent. Among the "extremely" interested, however, the race is tied at 47 percent -- a data point that has caused considerable agita for Democratic strategists trying to figure out how to get their base to pay attention to the race."


Similar info was just discussed on another thread. Looks like Coakley just has to get the 'extremely' and 'very' interested voters to show up & will win. Brown needs to suppress the turnout for everyone who's not 'extremely' interested & hope he wins in a squeaker.

Brown's chances of victory are slimming.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 14, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Why hasn't Barry dragged his teleprompters up there?

We all know why. His sole accomplishment in high office has Bern to turn Va and Nj red and now mass purple. Now that is certainly historical.

If repubs want to win upcoming elections, all they have to go is get messiah to show up.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 14, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company