Originally Posted By A Happy Haunt I live in MA so I decide to log on & TRY to get some relief from this Brown/Coakley election & what's the first thing I see...a freakin' Scott Brown ad!! HELP ME!
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I have a feeling either Coakley will win, or she will demand a recount even if losing by double digits and magically the recount will take 2 years to complete...
Originally Posted By mawnck If she does win, HE will demand a recount (and an investigation of ACORN) that will take at least 2 years to complete.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF He's already said he will immediately go to Washington and demand to be seated.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer The Democrats are already trying to place blame on other Democrats..... <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Coakley_adviser_memo_DC_Dems_faled_Coakley.html" target="_blank">http://www.politico.com/blogs/...ley.html</a> >>The Coakley adviser's memo: National Dems Failed to Aid Coakley Until Too Late — Coakley campaign provided national Democrats with all poll results since early December — Coakley campaign noted concerns about "apathy" and failure of national Democrats to contribute early in December. Coakley campaign noted fundraising concerns throughout December and requested national Democratic help. — DNC and other Dem organizations did not engage until the week before the election, much too late to aid Coakley operation Brown Capitalized on Concerns About National Democrats — From the beginning, Brown labeled President Obama's health care and cap and trade plans as tax increases. Polling throughout the race showed this to be the most effective attack on Coakley. — Coakley's lead dropped significantly after the Senate passed health care reform shortly before Christmas and after the Christmas Eve "bombing" incident. Polling showed significant concerns with the actions of Senator Nelson to hold out for a better deal. Senator Nelson's actions specifically hurt Coakley who was forced to backtrack on her opposition to the abortion restriction amendment. — Democrats concerns with Obama's Afghanistan plan forced Coakley to oppose the Afghan war in the primary, which hurt her in the general. Claims about Coakley's Scant Campaigning and Miscues Were Exaggerated — Because of the failure of national Democrats to support Coakley, she was forced to devote significant time to fundraising in December. She also released a variety of plans in December and had a public event nearly every day. — Coakley's failure to release television advertisements until 12 days before the election was the result of a fundraising problem that national Democrats failed to resolve. Meanwhile, right-wing groups pumped significant amounts of money into Brown’s campaign, allowing him to go up with ads first, including negative attack ads funded by the Swift Boat and Willie Horton groups.<< And the response from a Senior Party Official... <a href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/01/democratic_officials_respond_to_finger_pointing.php" target="_blank">http://politics.theatlantic.co...ting.php</a> >>"This memo is a pack full of lies and fantasies - The DNC and the DSCC did everything they were asked and have been involved in the race for several weeks not just the last one -The campaign failed to recognize this threat, failed to keep Coakley on the campaign trail, failed to create a negative narrative about Brown, failed to stay on the air in December while he was running a brilliant campaign. It's wishful thinking from a pollster, candidate and campaign team that were caught napping and are going to allow one of the worst debacle in American political history to happen on their watch that they are at the 11th hour are going to blame others. Before the DNC and DSCC got involved there was barely a single piece of paper on what the narrative is on Brown. The candidate in this race and the campaign have been involved in the worst case of political malpractice in memory and they aren't going to be able to spin themselves out of this with a memo full of lies." << Should be an interesting night, alas, I am off to Burbank to watch a play, but more than likely, I should know some results before the show....
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << — From the beginning, Brown labeled President Obama's health care and cap and trade plans as tax increases. >> Interesting when you consider that Scott Brown voted for the Massachusetts health care plan -- which is a more progressive model for what the Senate bill is trying to do at the federal level.
Originally Posted By dshyates Oh, look, by 9:30 Coakly has conceded. So apparently ACORN didn't "fix" the race. And Coakly, while behind by less than 5% hasn't demanded a recount. Man, I just love republicans.
Originally Posted By andyll Never overestimate the intellengence of the American public. The Republican's get everything they want passed with 51-55 votes in the Senate. The democrates can't even get a watered down HC bill passed with 60 votes. I will assume they will remain gutless and refuse to pass the Senate bill as it is and use reconciliation to pass the rest.
Originally Posted By Mr X Someone out there in cyberland explained the dilemma rather well though...in that all of Bush's wishes involved slashing/cutting/decimating stuff, all were simple budgetary issues and could be rammed through easily with reconciliation. Doesn't work that way with trying to actually BUILD stuff (like health care programs). That, plus with all the warmongering support he got from a rabid public, the Democrats followed along like sheep...afraid of being called "un-American". Thus Bush was able to reign like a king.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>So apparently ACORN didn't "fix" the race.<< ACORN only fixes races when the Dems win. ACORN is insidious and invincible. Therefore they must've sat this one out for their own Socialist reasons. WND will be investigating, I'm sure.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 >>So apparently ACORN didn't "fix" the race.<< ACORN only fixes races when the Dems win. ACORN is insidious and invincible. Therefore they must've sat this one out for their own Socialist reasons. WND will be investigating, I'm sure.<< Not even ACORN could save Coakley's campaign, she lost because she ran one of the worst campaigns ever by a candidate for public office.
Originally Posted By Mr X Great, but that Brown guy is a real dirtbag. America FTL!, I guess (I'm not even saying Coakley would've been any better, she certainly didn't seem to care much...I can't believe they couldn't come up with two more worthy candidates for Ted Kennedy's seat!).
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Not even ACORN could save Coakley's campaign, she lost because she ran one of the worst campaigns ever by a candidate for public office. >> She lost because unemployment is over 10% and people are angry and looking for someone to blame. The economic picture is especially bad here in New England. I think we rank 3rd in terms of the worst economy after California and Detroit. I watched this campaign from neighboring Rhode Island. The Coakley effort wasn't terrible. There were missteps, but nothing that doesn't happen in every campaign. Scott Brown campaigned on nothing except that he was a "guy with a pickup truck" who thought taxes were too high. He is an attractive man while Coakley is a middle aged woman who can come across as abrasive (of course, that's how people describe all assertive and successful women).
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I'm not even saying Coakley would've been any better, she certainly didn't seem to care much...I can't believe they couldn't come up with two more worthy candidates for Ted Kennedy's seat! >> Coakley was a pragmatic choice for the seat. She had a very good record of success as Attorney General in Massachusetts. Her approval ratings as Attorney General were over 70%. Her name recognition in the state was very high. She prosecuted Wall Street banks for predatory practices long before it became a populist cry. She prosecuted the contractors in the Big Dig tunnel collapse with successful results. In short, her history in Massachusetts didn't predict this result. A Boston Globe poll from early this year put her among the top people in Massachusetts to "have a beer with." I think we saw another episode of style overcoming substance. It's not that we haven't see this before. Our current President won a campaign based on style. To date, he hasn't delivered much on substance and it's not looking very likely that he'll have the political capital to accomplish much in the years ahead. When elections in the U.S. are run like an American Idol contest, this is the outcome.
Originally Posted By FenwayGirl Scary time to be living in Massachusetts. We still haven't gotten over the Mitt Romney era!!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***She lost because unemployment is over 10% and people are angry and looking for someone to blame.*** That's the easy answer. But it sort of negates the fact that Massh voters are, by and large, averse to voting for bad guys (like Nixon...Reagan...Bush...etc...). I think it was a crappy campaign that killed her. That's a less easy answer to swallow, I realize. ***The economic picture is especially bad here in New England.*** DUDE, I had no IDEA you came from MY neck of the woods. I won't presume to pry, but what state? And what region of said state? (I won't go so far as to ask which city, internet heebie jeebies and all that, that would just be too much fun to know though!) Me --- born raised Boston area, born in Quincy Mass...lived around the South Shore and North Shore here and there, never lived IN the city but never lived more than 20 minutes from it... And YOU?
