Massachusetts Special Senate Seat Election

[Phoenicks]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575011151581624616.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews

In the scramble, Republican contender Scott Brown, a state senator, was benefiting from conservative activists working to stir interest in the campaign among voters worried about social issues. Among them is the nonprofit Massachusetts Family Institute, which is circulating a voter guide that contrasts Ms. Coakley and Mr. Brown on issues like abortion and gay rights, where he favors tighter government restrictions.

Mr. Brown Monday launched a "voter bomb," a Web-based tool that leverages the power of everything from cellphones to social media networks to rally grassroots support. Supporters are encouraged to sign on to the campaign, and then commit to get 20 others to the polls.

A similar "money bomb" raised more than $1 million in small donations for Mr. Brown in a single day last week.

Mr. Brown said he is "grateful" for the grassroots support that has propelled his campaign. "We have come a long way but we still have much work to do," he said.

Most special elections are routine affairs, with little drama and low interest among voters. But this contest has the intensity and feel of a campaign with national implications. A loss for Democrats would throw plans to pass a health-care overhaul into disarray, with the loss of their 60th, filibuster-breaking vote in the Senate.

The day before Bay State voters go to the polls, political analyst Stuart Rothenberg switched his rating of the race to "Lean Takeover" from a toss-up.

"While special elections often come down to turnout–and they therefore are more difficult to predict than normal elections–the combination of public and private survey research and anecdotal information now strongly suggests that Republican Scott Brown will defeat Democrat Martha Coakley," the Rothenberg Political Report said Monday.

It said Brown is doing well among independents "and unless Democratic turnout exceeds everyone's expectations, Brown is headed for a comfortable win."

A Public Policy Polling survey out Monday shows voters leaning toward Brown 51%-46%, essentially in line with others.

In short, the election to fill the Senate Seat in Massachusetts is heating up. Republican Scott Brown is pulling ahead of Democrat Martha Coakley in the polls, but within the margin of error. The results of this election could detirmine the future of the Health Care legislation, as Scott Brown has promised to vote against Obamacare, ending the Democrat's Supermajority. Nothing is certain at this point.

 

[Big Lutz]

Gotta give Democrats credit, this is possibly the most stupid, vile, disgusting candidate ever ran in American Politics, to the point she may face legal damages from a utterly baseless and disgusting campaign tactic. When you get to the point you have done something so awful, that you may have to go to court because of that, that is pretty awful.

And of course I am sure President Obama will repudiate it... yeah... any time now...

Speaking of Obama he did make a speech up there yesterday, I do have to wonder about this election, is there something about Coakley that makes people just go brain dead around her?

Barack Obama: Forget the truck, everybody can buy a truck

Scott Brown: “Mr. President, unfortunately in this economy, not everybody can buy a truck, My goal is to change that by cutting spending, lowering taxes and letting people keep more of their own money.”

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.co...fortunate-in-this-economy-its-no-longer-true/

* Rim Shot *

By the way Insider Advantage Poll for Politico has Brown up by NINE points right now.

 

[Satoshi-chan]

Scott Brown: “Mr. President, unfortunately in this economy, not everybody can buy a truck, My goal is to change that by cutting spending, lowering taxes and letting people keep more of their own money.”

You know, that would be nice if we could actually get a candidate who wants to cut spending.

In the scramble, Republican contender Scott Brown, a state senator, was benefiting from conservative activists working to stir interest in the campaign among voters worried about social issues. Among them is the nonprofit Massachusetts Family Institute, which is circulating a voter guide that contrasts Ms. Coakley and Mr. Brown on issues like abortion and gay rights, where he favors tighter government restrictions.

Wait, he sounds like just another asshole who wants to spend all the money trying to fuck people like me over. Nevermind. I will never understand how making more big government laws to keep gays as second class citizens can be even considered conservative... when this is the party that is supposed to be AGAINST big government.

 

[Big Lutz]

Wait, he sounds like just another asshole who wants to spend all the money trying to fuck people like me over. Nevermind. I will never understand how making more big government laws to keep gays as second class citizens can be even considered conservative... when this is the party that is supposed to be AGAINST big government.

You do realize Scott Brown was one of a few legislators who voted in favor of letting the public decide on Gay Marriage, via a state marriage amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And has said he accepted Gay Marriage in Massachusetts as settled fact. I would say that there are few Republicans out there who are socially liberal like Scott Brown, and if he is in favor of letting the states or people decide on Gay Marriage then that seems alot better than letting "Big Government laws" decide.

 

[Phoenicks]

Adding onto what Lutz said Satoshi, one more senator who might not support gay marriage won't change anything. The Democrats would still have a 59-person majority. Do you really think that Congress is about to pass gay-rights legislation shortly in the first place?

And Lutz, Scott isn't socially liberal. That means being in favor of more social spending, which Scott does not support.

 

[Big Lutz]

And Lutz, Scott isn't socially liberal. That means being in favor of more social spending, which Scott does not support.

Sorry I should rephrase that, I view socially liberal as being some one who either supports Gay Marriage or would rather allow the public to vote on Gay Marriage than using Government to support or destroy it. Then again that may just be my definition :ksmile:

 

[Misty]

I define a social liberal as "anyone who thinks it's OK for the courts to make gay marriage legal even if the population at large opposes it". :B If you think gay marriage ought to be legal WITHOUT trampling over the will of the people, then I think that's more of a libertarian position.

Anyway, the big deal in this race isn't gay marriage, it's health care reform - and honestly, I wouldn't be very sad to see Scott Brown win. I think having a 60-seat majority has caused Democrats to become much too arrogant, and they need to start thinking about how to get Republicans on board - especially since 2011 is likely to see a far more Republican Congress, AND Obama up for election, not just a bunch of representatives and senators. :B

 

[Mr. Pikachu]

I wouldn't be very sad to see Scott Brown win. I think having a 60-seat majority has caused Democrats to become much too arrogant

this time over 9000, ever since taking control the dems have been taking their sweet time

 

[Eredar Warlock]

There's been some comparison to the Doug Hoffman election, where Hoffman was an unknown and popped out of nowhere to become a contender only to lose. However the two situations are rather different. Doug Hoffman suffered from a split constituency and wasn't helped by turnout when the Republican dropped out. Here, the Republicans are united under one banner and are highly energized and motivated. Democrats however, are not motivated and look really disoriented.

 

[Hector]

As a Massachusetts resident, I can tell you that Scott Brown has a ton of support from people all over the state. In the past few weeks, he has made a charge, fueled by a resounding victory in the last debate between the three candidates.

Brown has a great chance of winning this election and the major reason that he does is because a lot of people in our state dislike Coakley with a passion (mostly because of the fact that the ads she has been putting on television lately have been some of the worst attack ads I've ever seen)

 

[Eliana Rampage]

As a Massachusetts resident, I can tell you that Scott Brown has a ton of support from people all over the state. In the past few weeks, he has made a charge, fueled by a resounding victory in the last debate between the three candidates.

Brown has a great chance of winning this election and the major reason that he does is because a lot of people in our state dislike Coakley with a passion (mostly because of the fact that the ads she has been putting on television lately have been some of the worst attack ads I've ever seen)

As another Massachusetts resident, I can tell you that every person I met thinks Brown's bad news...

...As well as Coakley.

I have to vote tomorrow, and, well, I'm not too excited. We're kind of choosing between two bad apples and I REALLY don't want to be blamed for whatever heinous treachery goes down following tomorrows election. But that's just me...Perhaps outside of central Boston other people think either of them or worthwhile. After seeing their commercials, they're just nasty people.

 

[Hector]

As another Massachusetts resident, I can tell you that every person I met thinks Brown's bad news...

...As well as Coakley.

I have to vote tomorrow, and, well, I'm not too excited. We're kind of choosing between two bad apples and I REALLY don't want to be blamed for whatever heinous treachery goes down following tomorrows election. But that's just me...Perhaps outside of central Boston other people think either of them or worthwhile. After seeing their commercials, they're just nasty people.

I guess being from a suburb of Boston that's somewhat conservative... I've seen a more positive view of Brown than you may have... but that being said, I think Brown will be a better senator than Coakley. (In fact, I already did vote for Brown because I voted with an absentee ballot before I went back to school)

To me, Coakley seems like a vile woman.

 

[Champion Lance]

I would say that there are few Republicans out there who are socially liberal like Scott Brown

What about William Weld? He tried for Kerry's seat in, what, '96? I forget exactly.

I think he'd have done a great job.

Heck, maybe George Cabot Lodge can take the seat now that his competitor from '62 has vacated.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Turnout apparently is high. If so, Coakley has an advantage.

The hope is that the turnout favors Brown, however. Coakley's vote is entirely limited to the cities. The rest of the state is firmly in Brown's corner.

I'm no longer getting my hopes up, however. But if Coakley wins only by a small margin, you'll still see the Right emboldened. And if Healthcare passes, you'll see Democrats crucified in November.

 

[Netto Azure]

Well the fact that Massachusetts's is Half independent in voter registration...

Oh well, I'll be watching the news closely today. :3

 

[Eredar Warlock]

But Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1. That's why high turnout favors Coakley.

 

[Fig]

And if Healthcare passes, you'll see Democrats crucified in November.

I doubt it. Well, not the crucified part, but the "If healthcare passes".

The overwhelming majority of the healthcare damage has happened already. People who were going to turn hostile to Democrats over the healthcare reform plans already have. People who haven't turned on the Democrats yes, either are at least willing to give the reform a chance, or else disagree with it but still think the Dems are the lesser of two evils.

At this point, not passing healthcare reform makes the democrats look weak, indecisive and unable to accomplish anything, and people will still remember how the Dems wanted this costly plan.

Democrats time would be far better spent attempting to pass new, more centrist, and generally popular policies, than backing down on those liberal policies they've already taken the damage for.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Except...The new stuff they're doing isn't very centrist, especially since unions are getting a break in taxing it.

 

[Fig]

I said how their time would be better spent, not how they're spending it.

Plus, centrist is one possibility, but really, any sort of measures that are popular (or even populist) may be useful for the dems at this point.

 

[Netto Azure]

A Wake Up Call

​

How could the health care issue have turned from a reform that was going to make Barack Obama ten feet tall into a poison pill for Democratic senators? Whether or not Martha Coakley squeaks through in Massachusetts on Tuesday, the health bill has already done incalculable political damage and will likely do more. Polls show that the public now opposes it by margins averaging ten to fifteen points, and widening. It is hard to know which will be the worse political defeat -- losing the bill and looking weak, or passing it and leaving it as a piñata for Republicans to attack between now and November

As a resident of Massachusetts, in the last two days I've gotten robo calls from Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Martha Coakley, and Angela Menino, the wife of Boston's mayor -- everyone but the sainted Ted Kennedy. In Obama's call, he advised me that he needed Martha Coakley in the Senate, "because I'm fighting to curb the abuses of a health insurance industry that routinely denies care." Let's see, would that be the same insurance industry that Rahm was cutting inside deals with all spring and summer? The same insurance industry that spent tens of millions on TV spots backing Obama's bill as sensible reform?
If voters are wondering which side this guy is on, he has given them good reason.
Looking forward, one can imagine several possibilities. Suppose Coakley loses. Obama and the House leadership may then decide that their one shot to salvage health reform after all this effort is for the House to just pass the Senate-approved bill and send it to the president's desk. They can fix its deficiencies later. This is an easy parliamentary move. But the bill passed the House by only five votes; many House members are dead set against some of the more objectionable provisions of the Senate bill; a Coakley loss would make the bill that much more politically toxic; there will be Republican catcalls that Congress is using dubious means to pass a bill that has just been politically repudiated; and the House votes just may not be there this time.
Alternatively, let's say Coakley narrowly wins, the Democrats have a near death experience, and the House and Senate stop squabbling and pass the damned bill.
Either way, the Massachusetts surprise should be a wake-up call of the most fundamental kind. Obama needs to stop playing inside games with bankers and insurance lobbyists, and start being a fighter for regular Americans. Otherwise, he can kiss it all goodbye.
.

Meh, that's why I was pretty much against this bill at the outset. But the political fact of the time is it's either this crap or a REALLY decisive defeat for the Dems in November.
(Bah I'm 18 by then I'll probably just vote for Jane Harman >.>)

I'd rather have a debate under the Democrats than a top-down control by the other side. :/