Coakley vs. Brown
 

This is fascinating.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...7468963846.pdf

If this holds it would be one of the biggest upsets ever. Think App. State over Michigan or Boise State over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.

I was waiting for someone to post about this - it's HUGE news, and would be completely shocking if Brown came all the way back and won. I've been a Brown fan for quite some time, since he originally ran for state senate back in 03/04. My wife worked with some people who are now on the campaign, so I'd be happy for them as well.

Coakley has run one of the worst campaigns in recent memory. She had a lot of momentum going into the election, having been a successful District Attorney and being the current AG. Boston-area lawyers are heavily Democrat, and Coakley was getting a lot of money thrown her way. She sat back at the beginning of the campaign and was a little lazy in her campaign strategy, and for some reason allowed Brown to get out in front on issues. By the time she adopted an active campaign strategy, she's ended up leaning towards attack ads, and it hasn't really helped.

Plus, she's made some unfortunate statements (including referring to Curt Schilling as a Yankees fan), which haven't helped.

If Coakley loses this race, she has no one to blame but herself - she ran a horrible campaign (on the level of the Dukakis Presidential campaign and Tom Reilly's campaign for MA Governor).

Go Brown! :)

I agree completely!

And Coakley's claim that there are no longer any terrorists in Afghanistan probably didn't help her cause, either.

One of the things I think is entertaining about this campaign is watching the right-y bloggers that I read try to find the right amount of enthusiasm.

First, they don't know how realistic chances for the win are and then they have to constantly keep themselves from overheating by reminding themselves that he's likely to be a liberal Republican, but they'll definitely take what they can get in Massachusetts.

He's not that liberal though...he's conservative on economics, gun rights, the death penalty, and on marriage laws (i.e. he thinks marriage should be limited to a man and a woman).

He's not on the far right, but he's definitely not a liberal Republican.

I wasn't thinking so much that he was actually liberal in comparison to the whole electorate, just in comparison conservative bloggers.

ETA: I haven't looked at his record at all really before today. The bloggers weren't anti-Brown at all, but were just noting kind of where things stood that the right was this fired up over a fairly moderate guy and was it wise to be.

Oh, I definitely understand what you're saying. Brown is probably more moderate than the most vocal conservatives (which is another topic that I can get fired up about). But, it's not like MA would be electing a RINO if Brown were to win.

I think people tend to make the same mistake with MA that they do with NY. They put a lot of emphasis on the most liberal areas (around NYC and around Boston) and forget that both states have areas that are heavily conservative (upstate NY and western MA).

It's true that the conservative areas have less population, but they're still large enough to make a difference when properly mobilized. This election has been a interesting combination of circumstances: Brown has run an excellent campaign, and Coakley has run a terrible campaign. Unlike the Kennedy/Romney race in 1994 (where Kennedy mounted a great charge near the end), Coakley may have waited too long to actively work for the job.

People do that with Michigan as well. They forget that most of the geographic state is red, but the part that is blue has the highest population. We had a Republican for 8 years before our current Democratic Governor. We went Reagan. Our state congress is Republican. Yet, people think we're totally blue.

Absolutely. I know some professional politicos who are absolutely beside themselves with her self destruction. This was a race that was hers to lose, and it shouldn't even have been this close.

The rest I'll save for when the votes are counted.

The media story I saw about it yesterday morning implied that this is essentially an election about national health care and that, since Massachusetts already has their own health plan, many are against national health care. What do those closer to this state think of this analysis?

A couple of issues with this (I think the healthcare issue is overblown as it relates to MA):

1) While the MA legislature is heavily Democrat, most of the Governors over the past 10-15 years have been Republicans (and not just RINOs). The voters aren't afraid of voting in a Republican if they think he/she is the best person for the job.

2) It can't be overstated that Coakley has run a TERRIBLE campaign, as in historically terrible. She assumed that her party affiliation, when combined with name recognition, would float her into office. She completely underestimated the fact that Brown would seriously campaign for the seat, and that he'd have a lot of support in doing so. Everyone talks about how this election is "too important," and I understand that sentiment. However, Coakley didn't seem to put a lot of effort into the thing until the last week or two.

On this: I have a ton of respect for what Kennedy did as a Senator, and I think he worked tremendously hard for Massachusetts. Massachusetts residents felt the same way, and I think they're really turned off by the fact that Coakley has done so little in pursuing the seat.

3) The economy issue is huge, especially in the poorer areas of the Commonwealth. Brown has at least tried to answer those concerns, and again, Coakley waited too long to do so.

I'm not naive enough to think that the healthcare debate is completely absent from people's minds. I think it's an issue, and there are probably a lot of people who are voting based on that issue (on both sides). However, I think there are a lot of other issues at play.

ETA: I'm not saying that any one of these reasons is a good reason to vote for one candidate or the other. These are just things I've heard from people who live in MA or who work in politics in MA.

4) Scott Brown is a GOOD GUY. Everyone who meets him says that he truly listens to the citizens of the state, and he's someone they can trust. Being from this state originally, I still know a lot of people from there. Interestingly enough, I have had both Republicans and Democrats of MA tell me that a reason they're voting for Brown is because he reminds them of Senator Kennedy. Many people, even if they didn't agree with his policies, could agree that Kennedy was someone that was passionate about what he believed in, and was a "man of the people". They also see that in Scott Brown.

Definitely, likeability is a big factor. On the other side, Coakley has not played up the likeability factor (or really any other factor) in her campaigning.

I think it comes from Detroit. When I see Michigan on TV regarding politics or the economy the focus is always on Detroit. Detroit is a part of Michigan...not all of Michigan.

"In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees," MSNBC host Keith Olbermann said.

Wow! What happened to the "liberal" mantra of "Peace, Love and Understanding"? :confused:

Olbermann isn't a serious newsman (not that he ever claimed to be), but simply a talking head pushing his own agenda. That doesn't make him any worse than a Bill O'Reilly figure, but it also means that we don't have to give much serious thought to his commentary.

Jon Stewart's take on this cracked me up. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_427917.html

Oh John Stewart.

This is interesting http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks...n&asset=&ccode=

I can't wait until the Teaparty goes away just so I don't have to hear this anymore. I know I work with mostly men and all, but does anybody else think nasty thoughts when they read this?

I agree that Olberman is not a newsperson but he is a commentator/pundit with his own show. I see no reason why he should not have been called to the carpet for these comments.

^^^The term teabaggers/teabagging is offensive to me. Maybe others think it is funny but really. :( I would never stir up stink about people using the term but it is crass and uncalled for.

Except that originally, a lot of tea party participants identified THEMSELVES using that term. They tied tea bags to themselves while carrying signs and wearing clothing saying "teabagger." Gross.

So you fault the Tea Party for the inappropriate nickname that their opponents use?

(No doubt you may have ideological issues with the Tea Party as well, but as far as the immature name calling, it kind of seems like you're blaming the victims.)

I know they used tea bags in a Boston Tea Party way, but I've never seen them use the term. Do you have a link?

Sure. Here's one of a man showing one of the ever-lovely "Proud to be a Teabagger" buttons. It took .24 seconds to find this example on google and there are plenty more.

You really think that old dude has a sense of the urban dictionary level of the term?

I think the wikipedia article does a nice job with an overview of the terminology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Par...22_controversy.

I don't think one sees "teabagger" in the media because the Tea Party members are typically using it. I think you see it because people use it to disparage the Tea Party folks.

LOL. No I totally don't think that old dude has a sense of the urban dictionary level of the term. To be clear, I'm not condoning the use of the term. I also think it's gross. I'm just also pointing out that there are plenty of people who used the term to describe themselves (most likely without understanding the double entendre).

Yeah, I still wouldn't blame the folks who use tea bagging to mean sending tea bags to politicians responsible for the grossness.

On some level it's sad that all these folks are going to have to learn the other meaning of tea bagging.

So Coakley has conceded and Brown is the new Senator. I'm kind of surprised it wasn't closer, although Coakley's lack of campaigning was a part of that.

The funniest part about all of this: back in 2004, when John Kerry was running for President, there was a lot of discussion of who would fill his seat. At the time, the law on the books was that the Governor would have the power to appoint a replacement. The MA legislature was not happy with this, as the Governor was a Republican (Romney). So, it changed the law allowing for the special election. Of course Kerry lost, so it ended up being a moot point.

The funny part is, if the legislature hadn't changed the vote, Democrats would still hold the seat (Gov. Patrick would have appointed a Democrat). So, in a way, the MA Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.

Hehe.

I don't understand how the health care bill would fail if a Republican won the seat though...

Something about a supermajority being needed to block certain procedural tricks the minority can use to kill a bill? I dunno. Don't really care much lol. My democrat facebook friends are sick with grief. I tell them the same thing I do about Jay Leno -- the people who liked Coakley so much should have shown up at the polls. If not, all I can do is accept the change.

"God is change." -- Octavia Butler

Essentially a bill can be fillibustered unless 3/5ths of the Senate votes against it.

Basically -- if they follow "normal" procedure on the health care bill, members of both the House and Senate will get together in conference committee to hash out the differences between the chambers and come up with a single conference report. The conference report would then need to be adopted in both chambers to send the bill to the president.

The problem with this is that the Senate needs a 3/5 vote (60 votes) to move forward on anything. A single senator can put a hold on anything they want, and the chamber can't move forward on it until a motion to close debate (cloture) is adopted, which requires 60 votes. The Senate Dems now only have 59 seats due to Brown, so they would have to flip a Republican (not happening), or rush through a conference report and vote on it before Brown is seated (also unlikely).

I would be extremely surprised if the health care bill went down, though. I've suspected all along that the House will simply concur in the Senate version of the bill and send that version to Obama to sign -- it's a relatively simple motion and House leadership should be able to rustle up enough votes for it. House members won't like doing it, but it's my best guess for how it will go down. There's also the possibility of reconciliation, but Reid has already said he wouldn't use it on health care, so I don't think he'll go there unless he has to.

I think there are a couple of other things at play: first, that Coakley really let down her supporters with the way she ran her campaign. Second, MA Democrats are probably realizing that the only Democrat Senator now is Sen. Kerry, who doesn't care AT ALL about Massachusetts. So MA Democrats don't think they have anyone truly representing their interests.

That said I think Brown will do a great job, and I'm glad he won.

Since you're probably the most knowledgeable person on the board about Washington politics: What do you think are the chances that they try to push it through before Brown is seated? Do you think that would only occur with some sort of reconciliation measure?

Yes I realized last night that I forgot about that rascally Fillibuster.

I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that the conference committee will at least try to come up with something that Olympia Snowe would support. But I agree that the most likely scenario is that the House concurs in the Senate version.

It is my understanding that Sen. Reid blew off Sen. Snowe and this really ticked her off. She has stated that she will not agree to the bill in any of its forms but her past indicates that she will turn on a dime.

The House may well agree to the Senate version but it faces a huge uphill battle. The two bills are different in many aspects and holding the votes might be a problem for Congresswoman Pelosi.

I believe they will start over and break the bill apart and vote on individual parts. This is probably what they should have done anyway.

Somehow I missed that. But you're right -- amazing how quickly things can change up there.

I believe this is the least likely outcome, but I could of course be wrong.

KSigKid -- I think it's unlikely that they'll attempt to push anything through before Brown is seated. A few Dems have already sent out press releases asking for all votes on health care to be held until after he is seated, and it really goes against the nature of the Senate as a collegial body.

My sense is that the House will pass the Senate bill as it is, then simultaneously bring up a corrections bill that would incorporate deals made in negotiations over the last week. The corrections bill could be passed through reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes in the Senate, or even under regular order, assuming Dem leaders find the votes.