Will The GOP Pick up Ted Kennedy's Seat?

[Peephole]

YAnd yet.. they beat her down viciously, which demonstrates that they fear her. You don't go to that much effort to destroy someone who is actually zero threat to you whatsoever.. and that you actually WANT as a nominee. That doesn't even make any sense. They want her to run, so they can beat her.. but also doing all they can to destroy her, so she can't win. It's mind boggling.

No, not really. You just don't understand comedy.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Boy the liberals sure are obsessed with Palin for some strange reason.

Yes, it's confusing because, on the one hand, they are often going out of their way to practically beg for her to be the candidate. Statements about how it would mean certain victory for Obama. It would be the worst move the GOP could ever make. Please, please GOP, NOMINATE HER!

And yet.. they beat her down viciously, which demonstrates that they fear her. You don't go to that much effort to destroy someone who is actually zero threat to you whatsoever.. and that you actually WANT as a nominee. That doesn't even make any sense. They want her to run, so they can beat her.. but also doing all they can to destroy her, so she can't win. It's mind boggling.

I'm very much reminded of something else. During the 1988 campaign, after George Bush had secured the nomination, attention turned to who he might select as a running mate. The news media gave a fair amount of attention to several possible choices, but really focussed on a young senator from Indiana, “A Robert Redford lookalike”, who they built up as some kind of brilliant young political prodigy. They weren't at all subtle about putting forth the notion that it was he who Bush should choose as his running mate; and in fact, that's who Bush chose. From the moment that this choice was announced, the press turned very viciously against him, and we got to spend the next eight years being treated by every possible effort on the part of the press to depict Dan Quayle as immature and unintelligent.

 

[Ausmerican]

I'm very much reminded of something else. During the 1988 campaign, after George Bush had secured the nomination, attention turned to who he might select as a running mate. The news media gave a fair amount of attention to several possible choices, but really focussed on a young senator from Indiana, “A Robert Redford lookalike”, who they built up as some kind of brilliant young political prodigy. They weren't at all subtle about putting forth the notion that it was he who Bush should choose as his running mate; and in fact, that's who Bush chose. From the moment that this choice was announced, the press turned very viciously against him, and we got to spend the next eight years being treated by every possible effort on the part of the press to depict Dan Quayle as immature and unintelligent.

Potato- potatoe.

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."

"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."

"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared.'"

"Welcome to President Bush, Mrs. Bush, and my fellow astronauts."

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit . . . Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."

"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."

"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy -- but that could change."

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."

"The future will be better tomorrow."

"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."

"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history."

"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe."

"I am not part of the problem. I am a Republican."

"I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix."

"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."

"When I have been asked during these last weeks who caused the riots and the killing in L.A., my answer has been direct and simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to blame."

"Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it."

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."

"For NASA, space is still a high priority."

"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system."

"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."

Yeah it took a lot of effort by the media. They had to hold a microphone out to him.

 

[Alan]

Boy the liberals sure are obsessed with Palin for some strange reason.

...Brainster was the person who brought Palin up regarding that quote. Peephole was replying to that.

And can you imagine the howls of laughter if Sarah Palin had said this:

During Monday's debate with Republican Scott Brown, Coakley questioned why the United States still has troops in Afghanistan. She claimed that the al Qaeda terrorists who were originally targeted by American military action have migrated elsewhere, rendering the mission moot. "They're gone," she said. "They're not there anymore. They're in, apparently Yemen, they're in Pakistan."

I am hopeful that Massachusetts voters will flush this turd.

No, that seems like a very sensible statement that I and others would applaud Sarah Palin for.

Really, I don't see it?

 

[Ausmerican]

Also in the Palin gets a deal with Fox thread it was Brainster that implied that Palin running in 2012 would give Obama a "free ride to reelection". For some reason Whiplash and Eyeron are in denial that it isn't just liberals that think she is a flake, it is quite a few conservatives as well.

 

[Brainster]

Back to the Massachusetts senate race, Stuart Rothenberg's Rothenberg Political Report has moved the race into the "Toss Up" category:

Democratic desperation and other compelling evidence strongly suggest that Democrats may well lose the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat in Tuesday’s special election. Because of this, we are moving our rating of the race from Narrow Advantage for the Incumbent Party to Toss-Up.

Whatever the shortcomings of the Coakley campaign (and they certainly exist), this race has become about change, President Obama and Democratic control of all of the levers of power in Washington, D.C. Brown has “won” the “free media” over the past few days, and if he continues to do so, he will win the election.

Gail Collins, editorial page editor for the New York Times writes:

If Massachusetts was the Department of Homeland Security, the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s senate seat would have the Democrats about four-fifths of the way up the terror alert code.

Orange: You know, it really doesn’t matter whether you win by a million votes or one vote, just so long as you win.

The campaign has not hit red yet, although, for the Democrats, the whole world has begun to look orange with dark tints. Like a decaying pumpkin. It cannot be a good sign when the Massachusetts secretary of state has to deny rumors that he plans to stall certification of the election results until after the health care bill is passed.

She also goes into a bizarre digression about how unfair the filibuster is, claiming at the end that this is the reason why Obama's not getting anything done.

The Boston Globe claims she's running the race smartly, but this comment is already rebounding against her:

Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.

“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that. “This is a special election. And I know that I have the support of Kim Driscoll. And I now know the members of the [Salem] School Committee, who know far more people than I could ever meet.’’

Well, hey, if Kim Driscoll and the Salem School Committee's on board, who needs the folks at Fenway Park?

 

[AlBell]

Perhaps Coakley will move to Belgium thereby increasing the moral fiber of both the USA and Belgium.

http://bigjournalism.com/ghewson/20...d-like-you-to-forget-about-candidate-coakley/

 

[Brainster]

Perhaps Coakley will move to Belgium thereby increasing the moral fiber of both the USA and Belgium.

http://bigjournalism.com/ghewson/20...d-like-you-to-forget-about-candidate-coakley/

Wow. Just wow. Here's another summary of the case, from the Boston Globe, which has endorsed Coakley.

 

[Brainster]

The reliable Huffington Post has done some excellent opposition research investigative reporting on Scott Brown and determined that this supposed man of the people is a wealthy elitist, unlike, say, Ted Kennedy.

According to a review of Brown's 2008 financial disclosure report -- which was filed April 2009 and appears to be the most current document available -- Brown and his wife own (at least then) five separate properties. The list includes a 3,000-square-foot home near a lake in Wrentham, Massachusetts, a condo in Boston and a time share in Aruba.

A time share in Aruba and a 3,000 SF mansion? He must be some sort of plutocrat! Get this comparison:

Brown's wealth still pales in comparison to the state's other senator, John Kerry (D-Mass.), the richest member of Congress with a net worth of $167 million. But, like Kerry, his financial disclosures could prove problematic to his public image.

This is not the latest anti-Brown ad, but it's a pretty good parody:



But President Obama has cut an ad for Coakley; will it work out better than his pitch for the Chicago Olympics?



Not sure he should be pressing the "change" message.

 

[Brainster]

Suffolk University/Channel 7 poll: Brown up by 4.

Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error, the underdog’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.

“It’s a Brown-out,” said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.”

InTrade is at 74-27. Coakley did better in a Blue Mass Group poll (up 8) but you can probably guess what "Blue Mass" indicates; it's a liberal website. They also showed a high number of independents (11%) voting for third-party candidate Joseph Kennedy (not related to the dynasty). Here's an interesting endorsement of Coakley at that same website:

Let's get this out of the way. You might not want to vote for Martha Coakley. You might think she deserves what's she's getting after an absentee, self-satisfied campaign (why should I bail her out?). You likely want to send a message to everyone from the attorney general all the way to every Democratic official in Washington, DC. Odds are you didn't vote for her in the primary. And, you might be wondering if it'll make a difference who wins this Tuesday.

You got every reason to be pissed, but it needs to be clear: not voting for Coakley is the same as voting for Brown. And voting for Brown is a very, very bad thing.

The flop sweat is getting palpable.

 

[WildCat]

The New York Times and Washington Post are calling the polls even now. The Dems are in panic mode.

And everyone's speculating whether the Libertarian candidate named Joe Kennedy will siphon off more votes from Brown by conservatives or Coakley by liberals who don't realize he's no relation to the other Mass. Kennedys.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Wow, there was a LOT of volitility on Intrade over the last couple of days... it went from Coakley at 79% yesterday to 85% this morning to 75% now. And Brown wobbled up and down too, but is now at 25%, pretty much the same as yesterday. So after a day or so of wild swings, it's basically the same 3-1 breakdown as was before. What gives with such wild swings?

 

[MattusMaximus]

The New York Times and Washington Post are calling the polls even now. The Dems are in panic mode.

Well, I'll agree that they got a bit of a wakeup call, but fortunately they clued In early enough to mount a serious gotv effort. I think some of the "fear" that some people are harping on is, at least from the Dem side, meant to get the Dem base motivated. And from what I've seen it is working.

And everyone's speculating whether the Libertarian candidate named Joe Kennedy will siphon off more votes from Brown by conservatives or Coakley by liberals who don't realize he's no relation to the other Mass. Kennedys.

I was wondering about that too. Does anyone know of any polls that factor this third-party guy into account?

This is interesting, I'll admit

 

[Brainster]

Wow, there was a LOT of volitility on Intrade over the last couple of days... it went from Coakley at 79% yesterday to 85% this morning to 75% now. And Brown wobbled up and down too, but is now at 25%, pretty much the same as yesterday. So after a day or so of wild swings, it's basically the same 3-1 breakdown as was before. What gives with such wild swings?

Those aren't that wild swings. Either Coakley's shares or Brown's shares are going to be worth 0 late Tuesday night, and the other person's shares will be worth 100.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Well, according to Intrade, things are tightening... Coakley is at 65% while Brown's at 35%. If it keeps going this way it really could be the nail-biter that many pundits are talking about.

Btw, I did find one other prediction market on this question, though I'm not sure about its reputation...

Inkling Markets
Coakley 75.6%
Brown 24.4%

These two markets differ on the absolute numbers, but one thing's for sure - they are both showing a shift in favor of Brown. I'm not sure it will be enough of a shift by next Teusday to give him the election, especially now that the Democratic machine in MA is getting revved up for GOTV. But based upon what I've seen up until now, if Brown had another week to campaign or if the Dems hadn't clued in until now about the danger of losing the seat, then these markets would be flipped.

This is going to be more interesting than I once thought. Grab the popcorn

 

[Brainster]

Nate Silver (liberal but honest poll analyst) says it's a tossup.

That's a toss-up, ladies and germs! Both candidates are tied at 48 percent on the nose.

You can still argue that Coakley is favored -- and I might even believe you. Hell, I might even wind up making that argument myself. But at this point, you can't really cite the public polling as a data point in favor of your argument.

Byron York (conservative but honest) says:

"I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."

There are claims that it's the candidate, not a general rejection of Obama's policies, and there is evidence for that:

Intensifying the gloom, the Democrat says, is the fact that the same polls showing Coakley falling behind also show President Obama with a healthy approval rating in the state. "With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn't be happening, but it is," the Democrat says.

Note as well that while Coakley's sinking at InTrade, the market does not seem to be seeing this as a harbinger of things to come in the midterms, where the Democrats are still at 65% to retain the House, the same place they were last week.

ETA: InTrade now has Coakley at 56, Brown at 45.

 

[Random]

Basically, it’s just a matter of Coakley running a great primary race, then saying “I win” and walking away. It’s Massachusetts for crying out loud! The idea that a Republican might have a shot at the Senate seat is silly, so Coakley didn’t even try (thereby making it not so silly). All this shows so far is that if a Republican candidate spends a large amount of money and campaigns heavily in Massachusetts against a Democratic candidate who basically doesn’t show up, he might be able to come close enough so some polls show it as a statistical tie.

 

[Brainster]

Pajamas Media Poll stunner:

A new poll taken Thursday evening for Pajamas Media by CrossTarget – an Alexandria VA survey research firm – shows Scott Brown, a Republican, leading Martha Coakley, a Democrat, by 15.4% in Tuesday’s special election for the open Massachusetts US Senate seat. The poll of 946 likely voters was conducted by telephone using interactive voice technology (IVR) and has a margin of error of +/- 3.19%.

About the only negative I can see looking at the poll is that they should have rotated the order of the candidates. But Coakley's negatives are startling; 50.5%. Note in particular that self-described Democrats outnumbered self-described Republicans by about 80%, so it does not appear to be a case of oversampling GOP voters.

Full disclosure: I was employed as a blogger for Pajamas Media in 2006-2007.

ETA: Real Clear Politics points out that the Democrats in Massachusetts have only themselves (and John Kerry) to blame for there even being a race. In 2004, they were worried that if Kerry won the presidency, the governor (Republican Mitt Romney at the time) would have the power to nominate a replacement to serve out the remainder of his term. So they changed the law, requiring a special election be held. The irony is that now Deval Patrick (a Democrat) is the governor, so if they'd just left the law as it was, Patrick could have appointed a successor to Kennedy and the Republicans would have not had this opportunity.

 

[MattusMaximus]

ETA: InTrade now has Coakley at 56, Brown at 45.

Wow, not good news for her, but this seems to be contrary to the only other prediction market I've seen on this question...

Inkling Markets
Coakley 87.3%
Brown 12.7%

What the hell?! Can anyone explain this to me?

Well, there are some other variables to consider, which could add considerable volatility to the prediction markets - such as Obama's visit to MA this weekend. I think that could end up tipping it to Coakley, because if the GOP is already completely fired up to get out and vote in MA I don't see how a visit by Obama can possibly fire them up any more. On the flip side, it could end up being a big boost for the Democratic GOTV efforts - which could put Coakley over the top. We'll see.

On another note, I read something (can't recall where) that the timing of the election might be even more interesting. With the U.S. Senate slated to hold a final vote on health care reform within a week or so, the question (assuming Brown wins, which is a big "maybe") comes down to when exactly Brown would be certified as the new MA Senator and when he could assume his seat in Congress.

Will he be certified in time to "kill" the health care legislation, or not? I read that the certification process could take up to two weeks in MA (don't know why), and if this is indeed the case a GOP upset in this race would not effect the outcome of the Senate vote on health care reform. Surely the GOP will cry "dirty tricks", and they might be right, but I have a really hard time believing that if the shoe were on the other foot it wouldn't go down the same way.

If Brown wins, will there be other implications? Hell yes. The GOP establishment will get a strong boost, the Dems will be crying in their beer, and the Tea Party folks will feel left out. From what I've seen, Brown fits the mold of the more moderate-to-liberal Republican that so many TP-types despise; but he is exactly the kind of person necessary to win in that section of the country.

Hopefully, assuming a Brown win, the GOP will learn that they need to move away from the Tea Party madness and more towards the center. Can we hope?

 

[MattusMaximus]

ETA: Real Clear Politics points out that the Democrats in Massachusetts have only themselves (and John Kerry) to blame for there even being a race. In 2004, they were worried that if Kerry won the presidency, the governor (Republican Mitt Romney at the time) would have the power to nominate a replacement to serve out the remainder of his term. So they changed the law, requiring a special election be held. The irony is that now Deval Patrick (a Democrat) is the governor, so if they'd just left the law as it was, Patrick could have appointed a successor to Kennedy and the Republicans would have not had this opportunity.

The irony indeed