Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Republicans sense opportunity in Massachusetts special election

Republicans are growing increasingly optimistic that state Sen. Scott Brown (R) could pull off an upset of historic proportions over state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) in the Massachusetts' Senate special election next Tuesday.

Dan Balz and I wrote a piece documenting the state of play for the Post today. Here's the lead:


Fueled by the energy of conservative activists, a solid debate performance and a 24-hour, $1.3 million Internet fundraising haul, Massachusetts state Sen. Scott Brown (R) has thrown a major scare into the Democratic establishment in his bid to win next Tuesday's special Senate election over once heavily favored Attorney General Martha Coakley.

The intensified activity around the campaign to fill the seat of the late senator Edward M. Kennedy (D) highlights the degree to which the race has taken on national significance. A victory, or even a narrow loss, by Brown in the competition for the symbolically important seat would be interpreted as another sign that voters have turned away from the Democrats at the start of the midterm election year.
More urgently, a Brown win would give Republicans 41 seats in the Senate and the ability to block President Obama's health-care initiative and much of the Democrats' 2010 congressional agenda. Strategists on both sides concede that a Brown victory would drastically reshape the calculus of the health-care debate, which is now in its final stages.

It's hard to overestimate the symbolic (this is Kennedy's seat) and practical (health care) implications in what happens over the next five days.

Republicans now see the race as a win-win, believing that a close loss by Brown would still send a message to nervous Democratic elected officials that the environment makes almost anyone vulnerable. Democrats, meanwhile, are just trying to hang on for the win -- hoping to avoid what would be a colossal upset (and news story) if they don't.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 13, 2010; 10:56 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Ad spending tops $6 million in Mass. Senate special election
Next: What Massachusetts can tell us about the midterms

Comments

Quit posting under different names every time you get banned.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Quit trying to control the blog

Posted by: Noacoler | January 14, 2010 1:57 AM | Report abuse

zosima:

Feel free to chime in any day now.

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

Why don't you actually check how close the House version passed before you jump to that conclusion?

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Being banned repeatedly but changing your IP address is the exact opposite of "being allowed to post".

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

JakeD asks
"Yes, I have seen Schoolhouse Rock. ... do you have any info that Rep. Stupak and his band of pro-life Dems will vote for the Senate version in toto?"


None whatsoever. They don't need Stupak, et al, as you only need a majority in the House (I had to consult the pocket constitution for that one).


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 13, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

For anyone who wants to actually follow the rules here: noacoler is BANNED poster Seattle Top / GoldAndTanzanite / Chris Fox. Our host, Mr. Cillizza, has asked that we ignore or shame him for repeatedly coming back after being banned. Please take that into consideration.

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 10:56 PM
----------------------------------
Here's the opinion of the newbie. Anyone who posts here, is allowed here. I make up my own mind about posters based on what I see myself. I respond to those who strike me as openminded and courteous. Sometimes I'm wrong.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 13, 2010 11:05 PM | Report abuse

For anyone who wants to actually follow the rules here: noacoler is BANNED poster Seattle Top / GoldAndTanzanite / Chris Fox. Our host, Mr. Cillizza, has asked that we ignore or shame him for repeatedly coming back after being banned. Please take that into consideration.

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I wasn’t allowed back.  I’m technical; I’m a software engineer.  I re-registered and cycled my cable modem to get a new IP.
 
The bannings were not for any legitimate reasons, so I don’t honor them.  And since the first I don’t break the vaunted rules any more than anyone else, and much less than others who never get warnings.  The one now posting as Moonbat, among many others, has also been banned thrice, but only one of his known monikers at a time.  He’s the one calls me a pederast, which CC has never remarked on.  Since I’m a gay man and he’s from Texas he probably approves.
 
As long as he’s magnanimous to the racists, he’s a putz in my book.
 
More background: during the Bush years there was another columnist on here named Dan Froomkin.  Dan is a thousand times the reporter Cillizza is, Chris is a stenographer, not a reporter; Froomkin kept me and many others sane while Bush was snickering his way though eight years of damage.  But Dan made the mistake of being right where his neocon editors were wrong, and he got the push; he’s now over at HuffPost and doing a fine job.
 
But during the election Cillizza did a lot of fine work.  Really good weekly video summaries, REALLY good, the only video I ever watched online.  But since the election he’s become the hyperventilating GOP partisan you see now, spinning RNC press releases as straight news and oh man are things ever ominous for the Democrats.  I don’t even read his columns anymore, just the comments.  It’s like his IQ dropped 25 points on 1/20/9.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 13, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler | January 13, 2010 8:17 PM,

You don't know how much I enjoyed your explanation of the moderation around here. All I can say is that at least you're allowed back after your banishment, so that's something. How long were you in the dock?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 13, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the welcome. So, what the heck are Cillizza's admonitions? I'm feeling pretty dumb right now.
 
==
 
Well for instance, I’ve been banned three times.  The first two times were for calling out racist posts.  Chris absolutely hates seeing Republicans called racists, especially when they’re doing nothing worse than writing racist swill all day.  Your new friend JakeD has posted that Obama (since he has dark skin, must have been born in Africa) is ineligible to be president literally thousands of times in about a half dozen guises, e.g. “Acting President Biden.”  The third time I was banned it was for no reason at all, the given reason was “ad hominem personal attacks.”  Yes, (sic), that’s redundant, but then he doesn’t even know how to punctuate so it kinda passes.  I wasn’t doing personal attacks at that time.  Like it mattered.  I’m not a lousy Republican.
 
Anyway, he pops in every few weeks with an admonition to avoid personal attacks, yet one poster has referred to me as a pedophile many times a day for months and that didn’t get a peep out of him, while one person using the word “puerile” once was threatened with banning.  The arbitrariness isn’t subtle, and a number of excellent posters have left the blog in disgust; many more have left because the debates were dominated by the trolls, reposting their own material over and over.  And over and over and over.  Flooding gets a pass too, so long as it’s pro-GOP.
 
To make a long story short: the bias in the moderation matches the  bias in the columns.  Cillizza lives in some Bryce deWitt/David Deutsch style alternate universe where Republicans are one election away from recapturing every position in government, where Democrats are dispirited and “in big trouble,” where no Republicans are retiring, and where Sarah Palin and Time Pawlenty both have excellent chances of being our next president.
 
Finally, as you may have noticed, JakeD brown-noses like a leg-humping poodle.  Nobody else refers to CC as “our gracious host,” and nobody ever will, we have too much self-respect.  And weirdly enough it seems to work, unless there is some other explanation for him getting a pass on the protocols despite doing everything he can to disrupt the debates here.
 
Pretty soon it’ll be hyperventilation about Palin and Pawlenty.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 13, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

12bar: welcome.

As you may have noticed, most of us here ignore trolls like JakeD, look forward to your joining us.

And Cillizza's admonitions don't get much respect here since he us do protective of racist posters, whom I don't need to name.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 13, 2010 3:41 PM
----------------------------------
Thanks for the welcome. So, what the heck are Cillizza's admonitions? I'm feeling pretty dumb right now.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 13, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Weekly Standard? He should have been gutted.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 13, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Quit pretending you're the classroom proctor, Jake, this isn't your blog, however much you suck up to "our gracious host.". We'll answer when we please and ignore when we please and there isn't anything you can do about it other than your usual trolling and flooding.

Why don't you do a few dozen more "dingy Harry" repeats, troll.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 13, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

zosima:

Let me know if you are willing to adopt the answer of bsimon1 as your own.

bsimon1:

Yes, I have seen Schoolhouse Rock. Assuming arguendo that Obama is legally President of the United States, do you have any info that Rep. Stupak and his band of pro-life Dems will vote for the Senate version in toto?

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

"If Sen. Kirk's 60th "yes" vote is replaced by Sen. Brown's "no" vote, how exactly does Obamacare get past conference committee?"


Easy. Don't go to conference. The House merely passes the Senate HCR bill, which then goes to President Obama for signature. Ever seen Schoolhouse Rock?

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 13, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

zosima:

If Sen. Kirk's 60th "yes" vote is replaced by Sen. Brown's "no" vote, how exactly does Obamacare get past conference committee? You have at least watched Schoolhouse Rock, right?

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

It would be a disservice to Kennedy's memory to take advantage of his death to try to stop his lifelong goal.

But I'm not worried, Healthcare is too far along to stop now. The only thing at stake is whether the Democrats have the flexibility needed to improve the Senate bill before it makes it to Obama's desk. This is the difference between a decent bill and a better bill, not a decent bill and no bill.

Posted by: zosima | January 13, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Jake, maybe you could kiss Cillizza's butt some more and demand that Gator be banned for "ad hominem personal attacks."

Posted by: Noacoler | January 13, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

By thanking me for my answer you were implying you did not know the answer and needed a specific person to answer because only he would know what is on your mind. What is the more likely explanation is that you are under the delusion that you are the moderator around here and you will ask the questions and decide who answers. I feel responsible to deflate that balloon. Your appreciation is duly noted.

Posted by: Gator-ron | January 13, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, I think you are moving because you refinanced your home at the peak of the market and took out all your equity and invested it in CMO's like anyone who thought that the Club for Growth knew something about economics would do. You have decided to allow your house to be foreclosed because you are underwater. You are going to live with your son in CT and hope that your toxic assets come to life. If you are like the wing nuts I know you sold out of the stock market and bought treasuries in preparation for the turmoil Obama would cause.
 
==
 
He rings the bell.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 13, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Us do = is so

darn spellchecker winky winky winky

Posted by: Noacoler | January 13, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues and leapin:

Chris Cillizza has asked us all to simply ignore "noacoler". Thank you for your cooperation.

==

12bar: welcome.

As you may have noticed, most of us here ignore trolls like JakeD, look forward to your joining us.

And Cillizza's admonitions don't get much respect here since he us do protective of racist posters, whom I don't need to name.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 13, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

THE TRUTH ABOUT AMERICA!!!

www.AMERICAWAKEUPNOW.net

Posted by: AMERICAWAKEUP | January 13, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

THE TRUTH ABOUT AMERICA!!!

www.AMERICAWAKEUPNOW.net

Posted by: AMERICAWAKEUP | January 13, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues and leapin:

Chris Cillizza has asked us all to simply ignore "noacoler". Thank you for your cooperation.

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

But, we shouldn't be too complacent about the Tea Party movement. If some clever and lucky person could grasp the reins, and holds on long enough, and could focus the anger in a constructive direction, there are enough people who identify themselves as Tea Partiers to make a difference in the political discourse.

Posted by: 12BarBlues
------------------------------------------
True. Anger is a two-sided sword. Anger can kill and destroy or it can create and empower. Despite its dangerous and destructive aspects, anger, and at times even rage, are vital, primal, indispensable human passions. Sometimes we need to get angry. To defend ourselves or those we love. To take a stand about something we value deeply. To overcome obstacles thrown in our path. To fight against evil and ignorance. To express righteous indignation when warranted. Anger, when channeled constructively, imparts impetus, strength, courage, power and resolve. This upside of anger is acknowledged by Buddhism, for example. The spiritually naïve notion of totally eliminating the experience of anger is not only unrealistic but totally unadvisable. Even Jesus of Nazareth could get angry when necessary.

Posted by: leapin | January 13, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how long before they schism into splinter groups.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 13, 2010 2:31 PM
-----------------------------------
I guess you mean that to be ironic, since the schism is in full force. Reminds me of herding cats.

But, we shouldn't be too complacent about the Tea Party movement. If some clever and lucky person could grasp the reins, and holds on long enough, and could focus the anger in a constructive direction, there are enough people who identify themselves as Tea Partiers to make a difference in the political discourse.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 13, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Crap. This is no movement, this is a bunch of losers who don’t understand the world around them anymore, it’s changing too fast for them. A black president? Democrats in control of both houses of Congress? They’re having heart attacks.

I wonder how long before they schism into splinter groups.

Posted by: Noacoler
------------------------------------------
When did we get a black president? What happened to the bi-racial one? Things are moving too fast for me.

Posted by: leapin | January 13, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Smart of them to cancel it. It's pretty hard to unite people to do something, who are mostly united by anger against various things.

Posted by: 12BarBlues
------------------------------------------
Don't know about the anger but definitely more people are united against various things. I imagine some of it has to do with the dems broken "open and honest" promises.

Posted by: leapin | January 13, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

privacy3,

The Dems are worried. In politics, it pays to always be worried. The D's are worried in Mass. because Brown is surging. It's sort of like a horse race--will the surging horse cross the finish line first? Or not quite?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 13, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

NOPE. that was called off too -- it was feared it would look anti-capitalistic. See, they are completely incoherent -- don't know what they beleive. Big business bad, big business good, oy, it makes your head hurt.
 
==
 
But they’re so *angry* that they’re a *potent political force*, right?  An’ *grass roots* too! 
 
Crap.  This is no movement, this is a bunch of losers who don’t understand the world around them anymore, it’s changing too fast for them.  A black president?  Democrats in control of both houses of Congress?  They’re having heart attacks.
 
I wonder how long before they schism into splinter groups. 

Posted by: Noacoler | January 13, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

"Speaking of Tea Parties, are they still sponsoring a nationwide boycott (or something) on Jan 20th? "

NOPE. that was called off too -- it was feared it would look anti-capitalistic. See, they are completely incoherent -- don't know what they beleive. Big business bad, big business good, oy, it makes your head hurt.
-----------------------------------
Smart of them to cancel it. It's pretty hard to unite people to do something, who are mostly united by anger against various things.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 13, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: privacy3 | January 13, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

NOPE. that was called off too -- it was feared it would look anti-capitalistic. See, they are completely incoherent -- don't know what they beleive. Big business bad, big business good, oy, it makes your head hurt.

Posted by: drindl
------------------------------------------
Completely incoherent. Sort of like the formula to determine a new stimulus job created. What is it today?

Posted by: leapin | January 13, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Teabaggers themselves coined the term. And if you are going to run around with a hat or glasses festooned with teabags, what else do you expect? You are lucky people just call them teabaggers - it could be worse.

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Another day, another shameless piece of GOP boosterism.

Only the polls known to be GOP slanted aresaying anything good about Brown's chances.

Bad news, Chris: if you redraw the map, the coastline stays right where it is anyway.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 13, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"Speaking of Tea Parties, are they still sponsoring a nationwide boycott (or something) on Jan 20th? "

NOPE. that was called off too -- it was feared it would look anti-capitalistic. See, they are completely incoherent -- don't know what they beleive. Big business bad, big business good, oy, it makes your head hurt.

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

At least Mr. Cillizza is not posting threads about Dingy Harry Reid anymore : )

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Lets start calling each other names.

.

Posted by: bsimon1
--------------------------------------
Teabagger!

Posted by: leapin | January 13, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of Tea Parties, are they still sponsoring a nationwide boycott (or something) on Jan 20th? Haven't heard anything about it lately.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 13, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

privacy3 writes
" To the libs, the polls aren't accurate, Brown's surge is temporary, the Dems have sent their big guns just for the heck of it,...blah, blah, blah."


The polls don't agree, so some of them are definitely wrong. The most likely outcome is they are all wrong. Repubs like the ones that say Brown is close, while Dems like the ones with their gal winning. Shocking stuff. Lets start calling each other names.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 13, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Tea Party activists have raised concerns in recent days over the event's $549 price tag, its location at a swank Nashville hotel -- hardly in keeping with the movement's grassroots image -- and the decision to pay Sarah Palin perhaps as much as $100,000. They've also blasted the event's vague financial arrangements. This morning, a key co-sponsor announced his group was pulling out of the event, citing that issue and others. And another influential conservative voice has written that the convention "smells scammy."

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 1:21 PM
-------------------------------------------
I understand that the event is not sold out, which may be another reason for the distancing of certain groups. You know the adage about success having many fathers, failures being orphans.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 13, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

This is a blog about politics, period. and it's a BLOG, so I will talk about whatever I want, as long as it is POLITICAL. And palin and her toxic tea partiers are everywhere these days -- the MSM cna't get enuogh of them:

"Sarah Palin turned down a CPAC speaking role for the cash grab at Tea Party Nation, they had to go find a suitable replacement:

Fox News host Glenn Beck is going to the closing speaker at this year’s CPAC conference, according to the conservative organization’s Twitter feed.

“CPAC is my kind of people,” Beck said on the radio this morning. “CPAC is, I think they’re as angry at the Republicans as I am.”

Get this? Teabaggers are angry at REPUBLICANS. THIS is who they are going after with pitchforks.

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Gator-Ron:

Thanks for your answer, but I was asking "shrink2".

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama is looking worse and worse by the day.


This past month has been HORRIBLE FOR OBAMA -

Posted by: 37thand0street
------------------------------------------
He is sounding worse and worse too. Have you seen and heard the "Lies" video? His own words fueling his downward spiral. The sad thing is that his base doesn’t have the self-respect to see through the lies. I wonder if they accept the same from their spouses, partners, employers, and friends.

Posted by: leapin | January 13, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"the Dems have sent their big guns just for the heck of it,...blah, blah, blah. "

Is that the new benchmark for Republican moral victory in this contest? That the Democrats have to actually campaign for the seat?

Posted by: DDAWD | January 13, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

privacy3


It's not Ted Kennedy's seat - and if they wanted to keep it, they should have put up a member of the family.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Gallup poll

Do you approve of the way Obama is handling health care policy


Approve 37%


Disapprove 58%


OUCH OUCH OUCH


The bottom has fallen out of Obama's health care program

Obama should withdraw the health care bill - and enter into negotiations to create a truly bi-partisan bill.

Obama is looking worse and worse by the day.

This past month has been HORRIBLE FOR OBAMA -

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Nah, I'm just fascinated by the pathology of losers and whiners.

Posted by: drindl
-------------------------------------------
Self-analysis can be tricky. Therapy is best left to professionals.

Posted by: leapin | January 13, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Drindl has quite a thing for Sarah Palin. Is the strong infatuation a case of opposites attracting or is Sarah a distraction to MA going down to Brown?

Posted by: leapin | January 13, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Yes, it's definitely a distraction. To the libs, the polls aren't accurate, Brown's surge is temporary, the Dems have sent their big guns just for the heck of it,...blah, blah, blah.

They just can't stomach kennedy's seat going to a republican.

Posted by: privacy3 | January 13, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

drindl, this article is about the senate race not Sarah Palin so save it for your facebook page. With respect to this special election, no one honestly has a clue what to expect. The problem with special elections is that you are dealing with a fraction of the vote you would get in a normal midterm election. If this race was taking place in November, I would expect Coakley would do 8-10 points better than she will do next week. Do I think Brown will win? I doubt it. I am not big on moral victories, but the fact that the DNC, DSCC, and every labor union is having to throw money at what should be the safest possible open seat in the country is mindblowing. Every dollar they spend here is a dollar they can't spend on their incumbents in NV, CO, AR, PA, or their open seats in IL, DE, ND, or CT (which is probably now safe).

Posted by: TexasProud1 | January 13, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, I think you are moving because you refinanced your home at the peak of the market and took out all your equity and invested it in CMO's like anyone who thought that the Club for Growth knew something about economics would do. You have decided to allow your house to be foreclosed because you are underwater. You are going to live with your son in CT and hope that your toxic assets come to life. If you are like the wing nuts I know you sold out of the stock market and bought treasuries in preparation for the turmoil Obama would cause.

When I lived in New Haven in the late 60's and early 70's I was surprised how narrow minded the people in my neighborhood were. If where you are going is anything like that you will have plenty of company.

Posted by: Gator-ron | January 13, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Nah, I'm just fascinated by the pathology of losers and whiners.

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Well, we'll see about Massachusetts, won't we? I think 14, or however many columns we've had about that are enough.

Now, more about the disintegration of the Tea Party -- really, they need to work on the brand. A new name would be good. Honestly, doesn't it bring to mind china cups and tiny sandwiches rather than revolutionaries?

'The organizer of the National Tea Party Convention, at which Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann will speak next month, cynically took advantage of conservative activists' willingness to work on behalf of the Tea Party cause in his bid to launch a money-making enterprise, according to one former associate.

Kevin Smith told TPMmuckraker that Judson Phillips, the Nashville lawyer behind the upcoming National Tea Party Convention, abruptly turned Tea Party Nation into a for-profit corporation last year, shocking fellow activists who had discussed setting up the fledgling group as a non-profit.

"I can't even describe to you the anger we had with him, using our volunteer labor and our passion for the movement to build his start-up," said Smith.

Smith's comments are only the latest in a barrage of criticism, which we've detailed, of Phillips and his convention, grandly billed as an effort to bring together Tea Party activists from across the country. Tea Party activists have raised concerns in recent days over the event's $549 price tag, its location at a swank Nashville hotel -- hardly in keeping with the movement's grassroots image -- and the decision to pay Sarah Palin perhaps as much as $100,000. They've also blasted the event's vague financial arrangements. This morning, a key co-sponsor announced his group was pulling out of the event, citing that issue and others. And another influential conservative voice has written that the convention "smells scammy."

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Drindl has quite a thing for Sarah Palin. Is the strong infatuation a case of opposites attracting or is Sarah a distraction to MA going down to Brown?

Posted by: leapin | January 13, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why Massachusetts is paying for an election next week. According to all the Republicans *they* have already won. All the noise they are making says so.

If Coakley wins by a small margin it will be because "turn-out was low" and Republicans really won huge.
If Coakley wins by a medium margin it will be because of "all that money she spent" and Republicans really won a victory of momentum.
If she wins big it will because Massachusetts is full of Democraps and "what can you expect," but Republicans really won a moral victory.

Although there seems to be very little chance for Brown to win there is NO chance Coakley can win.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 13, 2010 12:56 PM
-------------------------------------------
But if Brown wins by losing, he gets to pat himself on the back. Coakley gets to vote in the Senate, the only kudo that counts!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 13, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Gallup poll

Do you approve of the way Obama is handling health care policy


Approve 37%


Disapprove 58%


OUCH OUCH OUCH


Hey Margaret you want new and informative


THIS IS NEW AND INFORMATIVE.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

37th @ 1251, thank you for following directions.

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

Ouch. Sarah can't take the truth. It makes her feel like everything else does, so, so -- oppressed. Such a victim of those mean people who asked her all these -- questions.

'(CNN) - Sarah Palin is slamming a new book about the 2008 presidential campaign that largely portrays the then-vice presidential candidate as wholly unprepared for the national stage and poorly versed in a range of pressing issues.

"These reporters were not any part of what I was doing there as the VP candidate," Palin said on Fox News Tuesday, her first appearance on the network as a paid contributor. "I don't know who they are. I haven't met these guys."

The book – "Game Change," written by political reporters Mark Halperin and John Heilemann - alleges McCain aides quickly grew troubled with Palin's lack of understanding on key issues, including the job of the Federal Reserve, the difference between North and South Korea, and the purpose of the war in Afghanistan.

It's a bunch of BS from [McCain campaign manager Steve] Schmidt and those guys," Palin said. "It's pretty made up."

But the former Alaska governor did confirm one of the book's allegations: not knowing who was behind the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and falsely believing former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein played a role.

"I did talk a lot to Steve Schmidt about the history of the war….could there have been any connection to Saddam [Hussein]," she said. "So I admit that I asked questions about it."

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Coakley will be going the way of the Patriots.

Posted by: leapin | January 13, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

I lean liberal, so bear that in mind. I do not know a thing about this race, in fact I wouldn't even recognize their pictures.

Polling which shows Brown ahead or tied are outliers and are therefore suspect.

But, Coakley's support runs around 50% in the polls which are clustered around the mean (therefore more believable), whereas Brown's support is more volatile in those same polls. This COULD indicate that Brown's momentum is moving up swiftly, which is one reason the D's are calling out all the big guns.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 13, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats are going right over a cliff on healthcare and they just don't get it. Too many "special deals," too many "bribes" to Senators, and the public is fed up with it. This is not "change" anyone voted for. Where is the promise of "C-SPAN" watching out for us? The Democrats have lost the battle because they can't even win in the People's Republic of Mass. without a cat fight. How are they going to win in Ohio and Penn? The very best thing that could happen to the Democrats is that Brown wins and then healthcare is defeated and then in November the Republicans have nothing to run on against them other than their pure stupidity.

Posted by: N369RM | January 13, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

It is obvious (except to them) that Obama and the democrats have misjudged their mandate - they would be well served to adjust accordingly.


The American people simply do not want the health care program.

Obama has NOT concentrated on the economy - yes - he ARROGANTLY has said that "he didn't come to Washington simply to manage an economic crisis."

The truth is that Obama is PUTTING A DRAG ON HIRING with his health care employer mandate.

Obama is making a mess of the economy.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"it's because conservatives like to spend their time posting the same comments on every article they can find. Just because the conservative movement has a thousand JakeDs doesn't mean that it's powerful or that it will win elections."

hear hear, blarg. just look at this blog -- who's always on? Jake and intersection.

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

privacy3 cut off the end of Coakley's response:

"They are gone, they are not there anymore, they are in apparently Yemen and Pakistan. Let’s focus our efforts on where Al Qaeda is."
http://weeklystandard.com/tws/daily/daily.asp#blog-308066

Clearly the "they" in that sentence are Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda are no longer in Afghanistan; they're in Yemen and Pakistan. Whether or not you agree with that statement, Coakley obviously did not say that the Taliban aren't in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Blarg | January 13, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

yes, margaret, exactly:

"By Rick Klein
Did Republicans already win in Massachusett(E)s?"

I have never seen the MSM waving their pompoms more furiously for a repulican, their arms must be getting really tired.

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

"If you go to either the Boston Herald web site or the Boston Globe web site and read any article about Brown or Coakley, the readers' comments are running about 15 to 1, maybe 20 to 1, against Coakley."

So what?

First, the Herald is a conservative paper. It's also a moronic tabloid with no journalistic standards. Nobody with a brain reads the Herald. Coincidentally, it's popular among conservatives.

Second, number of Internet comments is meaningless. Look at the comments on any article about a controversial subject: An election, the economy, global warming, etc. Comments are always overwhelmingly conservative. It's not because the conservative viewpoint is more popular; it's because conservatives like to spend their time posting the same comments on every article they can find. Just because the conservative movement has a thousand JakeDs doesn't mean that it's powerful or that it will win elections.

Posted by: Blarg | January 13, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

To the Mark In Austin here is what Coakley said about Afghanistan and a link:

"I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I'm not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They're gone. They're not there anymore."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2582411/martha_coakley_declares_afghanistan.html

Posted by: privacy3 | January 13, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why Massachusetts is paying for an election next week. According to all the Republicans *they* have already won. All the noise they are making says so.

If Coakley wins by a small margin it will be because "turn-out was low" and Republicans really won huge.
If Coakley wins by a medium margin it will be because of "all that money she spent" and Republicans really won a victory of momentum.
If she wins big it will because Massachusetts is full of Democraps and "what can you expect," but Republicans really won a moral victory.

Although there seems to be very little chance for Brown to win there is NO chance Coakley can win.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 13, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Gallup poll

Do you approve of the way Obama is handling health care policy


Approve 37%


Disapprove 58%

OUCH OUCH OUCH

Hey Margaret you want new and informative


THIS IS NEW AND INFORMATIVE.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Gator-ron writes
"There is too much time and too much of any election is about local issues for something in January when people are uncomfortable about the economy to determine their verdict next fall when the economy will be improved.."


I have typically thought along those lines, and generally still agree, with one caveat: Different states' deadlines for filing are coming (and past). The electoral environment around the filing deadline will have an impact on whether incumbents choose to retire or run again. I think some who quit now will regret it later. Point being, with filing deadlines approaching, a surprise showing by Brown could nudge vulnerable incumbents who don't feel like going through more fundraising & another nasty election cycle to retire instead.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 13, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

To refer to the opposition as conservative rather then what they are which is right wing plays into the opposition's hand.

Were these right wing nuts really conservative I might be voting for them and friends of mine would definitely do so. Moderate conservatives do not like the Republican brand because they think of them as right wing. If they thought of them as true conservatives they would accept them.

Posted by: Gator-ron | January 13, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

As far as I can see, and I have limited eye site, cant hear and not able to walk much because of Sinal problem, the whole dann Dem and Repl. party is a bunch of crap, and that sure as shootin includes Ms. Coakley. I do not think the world will change for us in this country if Mickey Mouse ran for the office inMass. or any other state for thatmatter.

Just as a prime example - Gov. Patterson in NY, now rated the worst state to live in

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | January 13, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Of course Republicans "sense opportunity" in this election. Does the media really think they will come out and state they will lose next week? Of course not. Partisan spin does not make for good election analysis.

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

Posted by: parkerfl1 | January 13, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

The piece by Rick Klien is blather. If the results of this race get some of these people in tough races to drop out then the Brown race was a win. There is too much time and too much of any election is about local issues for something in January when people are uncomfortable about the economy to determine their verdict next fall when the economy will be improved.. To say otherwise is to spin. I think it will take more than spin to win in the fall and that is why I think conventional wisdom is wrong. This will be an average mid-term election.

Posted by: Gator-ron | January 13, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Coakley stated that Al Qaeda wasn't in Afghanistan any more.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 13, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

Why do you think that we are moving to CT in May?

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

So when will we see Palin give Brown the stamp of approval, and subsequently allow Coakley to win by 20 points?

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 13, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

I am a Dem. but I would not give that lady Coakly my vote. When I wrote to her that I was scammed by a Pet shop who sold me a pup with contageous parisite and I had brought her to NYS she turned the matter over to some underling. Mass. USDA hides behind state law, same as pet shops who are relly Puppy Mill. Took me six months and with the assist of CC co, Federal USDa and lots of hard work, I won . Purchase price of this poor pup was $850. Coakly, Kerry and the whole damm bunch in Mass. could care less for protecting defenceless creatures or consumers! Oxford local police were wonderful, they took pup and turned her over to animal wardon. This criminal who sold me sick pup through her back into my car where a window was open. She and her husband should be in jail, Coakly check out Laughlin Kennel. Team 5 . Channel 5 in Boston showed what these sub humans will do for a buck, and truck driver from Mo, was arrested for Cuelty to Animals after delivery to Laughlin Kennels. Mass. USDA, after 6 months of my crusade asked me how I did it, I replied: Hire me and I will tell you!

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | January 13, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I am a Dem. but I would not give that lady Coakly my vote. When I wrote to her that I was scammed by a Pet shop who sold me a pup with contageous parisite and I had brought her to NYS she turned the matter over to some underling. Mass. USDA hides behind state law, same as pet shops who are relly Puppy Mill. Took me six months and with the assist of CC co, Federal USDa and lots of hard work, I won . Purchase price of this poor pup was $850. Coakly, Kerry and the whole damm bunch in Mass. could care less for protecting defenceless creatures or consumers! Oxford local police were wonderful, they took pup and turned her over to animal wardon. This criminal who sold me sick pup through her back into my car where a window was open. She and her husband should be in jail, Coakly check out Laughlin Kennel. Team 5 . Channel 5 in Boston showed what these sub humans will do for a buck, and truck driver from Mo, was arrested for Cuelty to Animals after delivery to Laughlin Kennels. Mass. USDA, after 6 months of my crusade asked me how I did it, I replied: Hire me and I will tell you!

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | January 13, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Gator-ron, thanks for your comment addressed to me last night - I did understand your position, and I in no way think it was an unreasonable comment.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 13, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

privacy3, do you have a link to the D saying the Taliban were no longer in Afg? Sounds like a great talking point if she did not clean it up immediately. I voted for Ford even though he said Poland was not under Russian domination during the '76 debate, so I could be forgiving.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 13, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

This election has less to do with who will be the next senator and more to do with Republicans rattling the cages of other Dems in the legislature to not run again. It is these indecisive politicians if any exist who will decide who one or lost.

Posted by: Gator-ron | January 13, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

Is there a more conservative candidate than Brown running?

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Sorry to bring up something off topic.
This is just a drive by...

I hope you people living near the faults from Seattle to San Diego are prepared.
7.0 is not the Big One, which is overdue, according to the experts.

"The earthquake in Haiti had a (preliminary) magnitude of 7.0 and it appeared to have occurred along a strike-slip fault, where one side of a vertical fault slips horizontally past the other, scientists say. California's San Andreas fault is also characterized as strike-slip."

Posted by: shrink2 | January 13, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Either way, Obama has a black eye from this experience.


Obama was called out for being soft on terrorism.


Obama release terrorists to Yemen.


Obama was planning on releasing 45 more terrorists to Yemen.

Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

The Massachusetts changed the Senate-Replacement law last year - it's sort of like changing the rules in the middle of the game.


I don't think voters like that.


It's almost as if the democrats stacked the deck to maintain the 60th vote.


The democrats narrowly won in Georgia and in Minnesota.


Pennsylvania voters elected a Republican - who switched - so how solid were the 60 votes to begin with ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 13, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

During her debate the other night with Brown, Coakley was asked about the war in Afghanistan. She stated that the Taliban are not there anymore! What does that tell you about her intelligence?

Posted by: privacy3 | January 13, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Look at these wackadoo rightwingnuts cheering for a RINO.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 13, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

What Can Brown Do For You?

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

If you go to either the Boston Herald web site or the Boston Globe web site and read any article about Brown or Coakley, the readers' comments are running about 15 to 1, maybe 20 to 1, against Coakley. Even the latest Rasmussen poll shows Coakley's lead has shrunk down to just two points. I am now certain Brown will win this race.

Clearly a referendum on the disgusting Obama Health Care Bill!

Posted by: privacy3 | January 13, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Not really, JakeD. It is still spin. There are countless senarios that could unfold, but the only ones that really mean something, in my opinion, depend on a heavy turnout. If Brown wins, then Rs have lots to crow about. If he is close, say within 8 points, then they might have cause for optimism. Everything else really is just spin. If the Dems win by 20+ percent in a low turnout, it also means nothing. To be honest, I am not sure that a big Coakley victory with a big turn out means anything more than MA is a democratic state.

The big R victory here is the expectations game. If Coakley wins, and I think she will just because MA is a democratic state, the CW talking point is going to be about R momentum. Whether it is real or imagined is still hard to assess. The Rs will certianly make gains in 2010. How large they will be remains to be determined by a number of factors that we still have no clue about--most important of which is still the economy.

Posted by: trep1 | January 13, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

By Rick Klein

Did Republicans already win in Massachusett(E)s?

Not next Tuesday’s Senate election itself, of course -- few observers really think that’s winnable even now, no matter how toxic the environment for Democrats these days.

But the fact that this is a race at all -- or, at least, the fact that it’s being treated like a race over the final week -- is itself a victory that tells important tales for both parties. A narrative for 2010 didn’t have to wait beyond the first month of the year to get written.

The pieces are there: the Kennedy seat, the fate of the health care bill, Tea Party fervor, an anti-establishment Republican, a Democrat clinging to a lead in the bluest of states.

Democrats are being forced to spend very real resources in a place they should not, by any calculation, have to worry about it. They’re being met by resources (perhaps a more renewable variety at this stage) that Republicans never dreamed would be worth spending.

And they’re being forced to combat the very real perception that if it can happen in the Hub, it can happen in Arkansas or Nevada or Virginia, too.

“Aware that she has little time for the hand-shaking and baby-kissing of a standard political campaign, [Democratic candidate Martha Coakley] has focused instead on rallying key political leaders, Democratic activists, and union organizers, in hope they will get people to the polls,” David Filipov writes in The Boston Globe.

...

Not just a win is potentially dangerous for Democrats: “Brown’s threat to health reform is in some ways larger. He’s showing how Republicans can run against reform -- something sure to play out in other high-profile campaigns this fall, such as those of Reps. Frank Kratovil Jr. (D-Md.) and John Adler (D-N.J.), along with Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.),” Politico’s Chris Frates reports.

“A close race -- within five points, or even ten -- would generate significant panic among Democrats in other races presumed to be safe,” The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder writes.

(That's more than "nothing", trep1 ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Well, Republicans lost NY23 - a district that has been Republican forever - and managed to declare that a moral victory as well. I think if ten people vote for Brown, that will be enough for them to call it a victory.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 13, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

GO BROWN!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

CC, with all due respect, this does not say anything that you have not been saying for the last couple of days. Unless Brown wins,still very unlikely, this means nothing. The rest is conservative spin.

Posted by: trep1 | January 13, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company