• Search for:

• Archives

  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009

• Tags

  2010 2012 Afghanistan AGW Andrew Sullivan Barack Obama California Cap & Trade Chris Matthews Climate Change Conservatism Daily Kos Democratic Party Fox News Gallup George W Bush Glenn Beck GOP Guantanamo Healthcare Health Insurance Hillary Clinton Iran Israel Joe Biden John McCain Liberalism liberals Massachusetts Mike Huckabee Mitt Romney Nancy Pelosi Nate Silver Obamacare Pew Research Progressivism racial Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Sarah Palin SCOTUS Sonia Sotomayor stimulus Tea- Party Terrorism

The Daily Kos notes a similarity between the areas of Massachusetts that voted for Scott Brown and those that voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.

For Scott Brown

For Hillary

The red represents both Scott brown and Hillary. I wonder if this is does represent a breakdown between the young college educated and ethnic Obama base with the more conservative orientated blue collar Hillary base. If so, it would be instructive for future races, and should Democratic fortunes continue to decline, raise the possibility of a primary challenge for Obama (I don’t think that will happen but I’ve already seen a couple of mentions in the blogosphere about it post-Massachusetts).

Well it’s nearly 5am, so I’ll get some early thoughts in before heading to bed.

Firstly, my second shot at predicting and at least I’m getting warmer. At least I picked the right side this time but exaggerated the margin.

This will be a bit stream of consciousness, things will get more organised tomorrow after the pols and the pundits gather themselves and speak.

Republicans have hit upon a new way of campaigning. They now speak for the “independent voters of (insert state name here)”. It’s 3 for 3 in statewide elections in Obama won states in the space of a year. Not bad for what was supposed to be such a dysfunctional party.

“gas up the truck” – Funny chant and the whole truck thing worked well for Brown. But it’s time to drop it.

Who are the winners?- Apart from the obvious choice, Mitt Romney who lent a lot of support to the Brown team and Michael Steele who fed $500,000 to the campaign from the RNC without the press being aware. Publicly it would have tied Brown to the GOP too blatantly for Massachusetts voters.

Is any Democrat safe?- A poll in New York State had Republican George Pataki beating Kirsten Gillibrand comfortably in a hypothetical senate race. Very few Democrats can be comfortable today. That doesn’t mean I think that Republicans will sweep in November, just that Democrats are walking a high wire right now. A slip could bring things crashing down for them.

What might be that “slip”?- The Democrats have a decision now obviously. Do they rethink their strategy and move to the middle. Do they ditch healthcare, focus on bi-partisanship, ditch immigration reform and focus on jobs? That’s the safe bet. It might not excite the base but it’s not the base causing Democrats problems right now. Or do they go left. Force through healthcare, use legislative tricks like reconciliation and delaying the seating of Brown (not going to happen), fight the class war and push through immigration reform to shore up the hispanic vote. It’s a very high risk, high reward strategy. If he’s successful, I can see it bolstering Obama’s support. I can see a scenario that once the Democrats pass healthcare, moderates and enough independents to matter may just accept the fait accompli and move on. The Dems will probably be better protected in November and Obama probably wins in 2012. But if he takes this route and misjudges the strength of feeling, he’ll probably win Republicans the house, possibly the senate and even the White House. The Democrats have a significant blue wall of states that helps them in Presidential elections and gives them an advantage in the Senate. Tonight that wall was breached. Whether it is one that can be patched or becomes a breach that brings the edifice down will depend on how the Democrats react in the next few days and weeks.

Republicans should not get complacent. There was Obama-esque, Blair-esque (1997 version) excitement in this race. But many still were holding their nose as they pulled the lever for the Republican.

Rasmussen’s exit polls showed that 23% of Democrats voted for Brown as did 73% of independent voters (wow!) and Coakley only won union voters by 6%. Probably the most important number – 58% of voters said that health care was the most important issue in casting their vote. Of those, 41% strongly oppose the bill.

This may unite Democrats, but there will be too many looking at polls for this to happen. For the next few months it will be every vulnerable Democrat for him/herself.

This was not as much about Coakley’s bad candidacy as the Democratic spin machine will have us believe. It may have caused the final result, but it was the unpopularity of the Washington Democrats that put her in the position to lose. In late December she was still leading by upwards of twenty points. Since that moment, there has been the Ben Nelson Cornhusker kickback, the Christmas Eve Senate vote on Healthcare, the Christmas Day terrorist attack, the backroom dealings on reconciling the House and Senate bills and the Democrats hand out to the unions. Without these, even the disastrous campaign of Coakley would not have led to the result we’ve had.

This one’s important – If anything proves that the tea-party conservatives and the pragmatic east-coast conservatives need to work together, this result is it. What a potent force. The dynamism and energy of base conservatives and the independent and cross-party appeal of pragmatic conservatism. They’ve found a common cause in Scott Brown. Both sides need to remember this night.

Finally. Wow! what a transition in the space of a year. See; politics can be exciting. It may not be better than sex, but sport can’t hold a candle to it.

Massachusetts started one revolution. it might be hyperbole but perhaps the home of Lexington and Concord fired the first, thankfully metaphorical, shot that starts another one. The “people’s seat” may bring about a return to the people’s government.

Good night (5:33 ugh!), I’ll be online tomorrow afternoon. I think it’s going to be an interesting day.

One hour until polls close. I suppose I better have a shot at a prediction.

It is looking like an almost certain Brown win. The Democratic recriminations and the blame game started five hours before polling closed.So i predict

Brown (R) – 54%
Coakley (D) – 44%
Kennedy (I) – 2%

Brown by 10 points

Thought it best to go on record.

Chris Cilliza identifies why Democrats are fearful of a loss on tuesday:

It’s hard to overestimate the political impact of tomorrow’s race in Massachusetts on this November’s midterm election. Democratic strategists have already begun to fret privately that a loss by Coakley could set off a chain reaction that could significantly worsen the party’s outlook this fall. Democratic members of the House and, to a lesser extent, the Senate, who are already fretting about the possibility of losing their seats in 2010, would almost certainly take Coakley’s defeat as an indication of the toxicity of the national environment and head for the hills. Recruitment efforts would also grow far more complicated as convincing ambitious pols to take the risk of running in such an atmosphere would be tricky at best, impossible at worst. To date, Democrats have done an admirable job of keeping retirements in their ranks from spinning out of control. But a loss in a deep-blue state like Massachusetts — in a race for the late Ted Kennedy’s seat no less — would set off a panic the likes of which hasn’t been seen in Democratic electoral politics in a decade or more.

Ok. I think we’ve already established what a lousy candidate Martha Coakley is and I was reluctant to further labour the point, but she has made two comments in the last couple of days which almost defy belief in how they underscore just how little she knows her constituents.

1. Massachusetts is a state that is 39% catholic (a constituency that favours the Democratic party). So when asked about requiring catholic medical practitioners to perform abortions and administering birth control, it’s probably not a good idea to say that catholics shouldn’t work in the emergency room:

Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No we have a separation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: (……uh, eh…um..) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.

2. OK, quick baseball lesson for our Brits. As I stated in a previous post, Boston is obsessed with it’s baseball team the Red Sox and their hated rivals the Yankees. Between 1918 and 2004, the Red Sox went without a world series win, arguably the biggest story in American sports. All that came to an end in 2004 when they won the world series with Curt Schilling dramatically pitching to win one of the games. Why dramatic:

Despite having a torn tendon in his right ankle and blood seeping through his sock, Schilling started Game 2 for the Red Sox. Schilling had four stitches in the ankle the day before, causing him “considerable discomfort”.[41] He was not sure on the morning of Game 2 if he would be able to play, but after one of the stitches was removed, he was treated with antibiotics and was able to pitch.

Schilling is idolised in Boston, and by extension Massachusetts, for that performance. Step forward Martha Coakley:

Dan Rea: Umm Would Barack Obama be in if this thing was not this close?

Martha Coakley: Umm it’s hard to know, I think that he uh is welcome in Massachusetts and I’m sure everybody is happy to see a president come.

Rea: 62 to 36

Coakley: But I think probably if it weren’t so close Rudy Giuliani would be here and besides he’s a Yankee fan (Laughter) I just want people to know (Laughter)

Rea: Uhhh yeah but now Scott Brown has Curt Schilling

Coakley: and another Yankee fan

Rea: Schilling?

Coakley: Yes

Rea: Curt Schilling a Yankee fan?

Coakley: nooo, alright I’m wrong on my, I’m wrong

Rea: The Red Sox’s great pitcher of the bloody sock?

Coakley: well he’s not there anymore.

To put the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry into perspective for the Brits, think Rangers/Celtic or Man Utd/Liverpool.

Fair enough, in the general scheme of things, these may seem trivial. But bear in mind, for Coakley to win she needs as much of her support to turn out as is possible. A low turnout significantly favours Scott Brown. Now imagine you are a catholic Red Sox fan (39% of the population), unsure about whether Coakley speaks to or for you. I think she may have provided the answer.

By Israel

What way his flip flopping about his teabagging links will be viewed by the teabaggers and those who are still sane will have on the voting will have to be seen next week.

They’re just too damn arrogant, and wouldn’t know an effective argument if it slapped them in the face. All they are interested in is partying with the lobbyists, ignoring the inconvenient public, identifying anyone who disagrees with them as extreme and obsessing about Bush/Cheney. Everything that was loathsome about the Democratic Party during the Town Hall days in August is coming to the fore again as both parties do battle in Mass., proving that the Democrats haven’t learned a thing.

There is one thing, the people of Massachusetts love, outside of the Kennedy’s, the Boston Red Sox who play at the famous Fenway Park. It is an obsession with little comparison, it cannot be overstated. So after Scott Brown went to a New England Patriots game to press flesh as part of his campaign, how did Martha Coakley react?

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.”

What politician would want to stand in the cold talking to real people when they can go through the political establishment and avoid sullying themselves with ordinary people?

More evidence:

Outside the debate venue on Monday night, a truck pulls up, loaded with Coakley signs for a phalanx of Teamsters, who stand there holding them as the crowds arrive. Scott Brown shows up, sees the Coakley sign-holders, approaches and greets them and shakes their hands. Some tell him: I’m getting paid $50 to do this, but I’m voting for you. Coakley then arrives and . . . walks right past her sign-holders. No greetings, and certainly no hand shakes.

And as Scott Brown organises a grassroots fundraiser (targeting $500,000) that raises over $1 million at an average donation of $77, Coakley is in D.C. partying with healthcare lobbyists who are handing her $10,000 a time.

It may also be a good time to look at how establishment Democrats are looking to support Martha Coakley.

Here’s Obama’s favourite union, the SEIU:

“No wonder Brown’s campaign is being supported by the same extremist group that backs Sarah Palin,”

(note: Sarah Palin hasn’t got involved in the race in any public way to date)

Here’s a fund-raising e-mail from Senator Chuck Schumer:

Martha Coakley is running to fill the rest of Ted Kennedy’s term, and her opponent is a far-right tea-bagger Republican.

And how’s about this for a sense of entitlement from the same e-mail:

It would be bad enough to lose this seat — and Democrats’ sixtieth vote in the Senate — right before the final health care reform vote. But it would be even worse for the decisive “no” vote to come from Ted Kennedy’s old seat.

Obama’s Organising For America:

The polls are tightening as right-wing money floods the state, and one even shows the race to be a dead heat between progressive champion Martha Coakley and her extreme opponent.

An “extreme opponent”? Scott Brown supported Mitt Romney’s Romneycare in Massachusetts, he supports Roe v Wade and as Kathryn Jean Lopez notes:

A longtime friend of his even told the Boston Globe that “Scott would have made a great Democrat, but he comes from a Republican family.”

But before anyone starts screaming “RINO”, read the whole article. He’s hardly the tea-partying loon the left are trying to portray him as. He has even, God forfend, said he’d be supportive of the President on some national security measures.

The American left arrogantly believe that they don’t need to put their case to the people, and wouldn’t want to do so anyway (ordinary people are just too dumb and peasant-ish). They just want to be left alone to party on down in D.C., hang around with their friends in the political class and avoid as much contact with the prols as is possible. This is why their approvals are tumbling and why they will continue to suffer until they realise that government is not only “of the people”, but “for the people” and “by the people” too. Oh. And they might want to change the old Bush/Cheney mantra too. It’s getting very tired.

Republican Scott Brown has an outside chance of winning the special Senatorial election in Massachusetts. The Democratic pollster PPP calls it a “losable race” for the Democratic Party:

At this point a plurality of those planning to turn out oppose the health care bill. The massive enthusiasm gap we saw in Virginia is playing itself out in Massachusetts as well. Republican voters are fired up and they’re going to turn out. Martha Coakley needs to have a coherent message up on the air over the last ten days that her election is critical to health care passing and Ted Kennedy’s legacy- right now Democrats in the state are not feeling a sense of urgency.

-Scott Brown’s favorables are up around 60%, a product of his having had the airwaves to himself for the last week. By comparison Bob McDonnell’s were at 55% right before his election and Chris Christie’s were only at 43%. Coakley’s campaign or outside groups need to tie Brown’s image to national Republicans and knock him down a notch over the final week of the campaign.

This has become a losable race for Democrats- but it could also be easily winnable if Coakley gets her act together for the last week of the campaign. Complacency is the Democrats’ biggest enemy at this point and something that needs to be overcome to avoid a potential disaster.

It would be a huge story should Scott Brown win. Massachusetts is about as blue as states get. But there is another reason why a Republican win would be big news; it’s impact on the healthcare vote. Should Brown win, he represents the 41st anti-healthcare vote, the vote that can sustain a filibuster regardless of how many Democrats vote for reform. The Democratic Party is planning for such an eventuality:

Few have considered the Jan. 19 election as key to the fate of national health-care reform because both Kirk and front-runner state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee, have vowed to uphold Kennedy’s legacy and support health-care reform.

But if Brown wins, the entire national health-care reform debate may hinge on when he takes over as senator. Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the bill.

The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election.

Today, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.

“Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”

Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 – well after the president’s address.

Since the U.S. Senate doesn’t meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin’s office said today a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.

Does the argument that because it’s a federal election, a requisite ten days have to pass before certification can take place? No:

In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Deliberately delaying Brown’s certification (should he win) so as to avoid his no vote on healthcare gives lie to the way the party of the left identify themselves. It would be disingenuous for them to refer to themselves as the Democratic Party.

• Recent Comments

  • An American: Israel, You see evil in everyone that is considered Conservative…for instance, the people from the...
  • An American: Ronnie, I don’t care if they wear the burka in their medieval, backward countries…just not...
  • An American: Israel, It seems you idolize the false Messiah, instead of the real one. Just curious…how would...
  • An American: Rhoda, In one comment you worry about Muslims not assimilating…yet you see nothing wrong with...
  • israel: Rhoda: Christianity isn’t really looking for new recruits. Islam, is. WHAT?!?!?!?!? I’m sorry, but you...
  • Rhoda Klapp: I was in Kuwait for a couple of weeks. I did not assimilate. I met lots of nice people from various...
  • israel: Cameron’s not doing much to endear himself with the nutjobs on the US right wing:...
  • Ronnie: Does the census ask the question, ‘Are you a Democrat or a Republican?’
  • Ronnie: Rhoda. Do you ever wonder why half the world speaks English? Was it because we’ve been so good at...
  • Conservative Cabbie: Rhoda I don’t disagree with you, all I’m questioning is to what extent the problem...
  • An American: Rhoda, Where do you stand on what we’ve been saying about the burka and what Islam does to its...
  • Rhoda Klapp: Cabbie, what I am trying to get at is that there is a critical mass above which assimilation may not...
  • An American: C. Cabbie, Congressional districts that have the largest number of minorities are situated in the east...
  • An American: C. Cabbie, The truth is neither conservative or liberal…it is simply the truth. Have you seen the...
  • Conservative Cabbie: Rhoda Fair points, but I wonder whether it is true. Has Sharia replaced common law? No. My...

• Recent Posts

  • Andrew Sullivan Takes On Reality And Loses.
  • Analysing The Tea-Party Movement.
  • I Am An American!
  • The Three Ways Of Politics
  • Open Post

• Blogroll

  • Ace Of Spades HQ
  • Alex Massie (The Spectator)
  • America In The World
  • American Thinker
  • Americano (The Spectator)
  • Centre Right
  • Clive Davis ConFab
  • Conservatives4Palin
  • Gateway Pundit
  • Hot Air
  • Iain Dale
  • Instapundit
  • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Little Green Footballs
  • Marc Ambinder
  • Martin Meenagh
  • Melanie Phillips (The Spectator)
  • Michelle Malkin
  • National Review Online
  • Political Punch
  • Red State
  • Secular Right
  • The Adam Smith Institute Blog
  • The Anonymous Liberal
  • The Coffee House (The Spectator)
  • The Corner @ National Review
  • The Daily Dish
  • The New Majority
  • The Next Right
  • The Weekly Standard’s Blog
  • Townhall.com’s Blog