Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Massachusetts (Open Post) -- UPATED III

By now it's hard not to know what is going on in Massachusetts. Today is the special election to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy. I think in any other year, no one would be following this election. However, Scott Brown stands a good chance to shock the nation today and upset the system to become a Republican elected in bluest of blue Massachusetts. Scott Brown has campaigned as a down to earth politician. One of his tactics has been to drive a pickup truck to his different campaign events. His biggest issue has been health-care reform. Brown has said that if elected he will be the 41st vote against the current health care legislation.


The Democrat in the race, Martha Coakley has made a number of blunders, with many of them coming in the last couple of weeks. Among the blunders, she has stated there are no terrorists left in Afghanistan, has misspelled "Massachusetts" in campaign adds, and said she had no knowledge of a reporter who was pushed down by one of her security people (photo's of the event show otherwise). Perhaps worse for her chances with Boston voters, she said on a radio interview that former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Shilling was a Yankee's fan.

This race will end in one of three ways:

  1. An outright win by Coakley. This will make for interesting news for about 24 hours, will give Sen. Reid the 60 votes he needs to hold onto in the Senate, and is the traditional wisdom in this election.
  2. An outright win by Brown. Will be a political earthquake felt throughout the United States. It could change the very nature of the political debate for the next 9 months until November.
  3. A close win by Brown. The ugliest of all options. This will bring out challenge and recount after recount. We will also probably see a legal challenge to determine if Ted Kennedy's temporary replacement in the Senate can remain seated until the election is decided.


I am leaving this post open throughout the day. As I hear news I think is important I will update this post. Feel free to comment and check back often.

**Update One**

I just saw this at Fox News:

Congressional Democrats are meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday, but the acrimony is starting to reveal itself as Democrats speak more and more in terms of who mismanaged the debate.

It may mean nothing, but if Democrats are already looking for someone to blame if Brown wins, that means they are very nervous about their own internal polling numbers.

**Update Two**

On Michael Medved's show this afternoon he interviewed one of the author's of the new book Game Change. Mark Halperin stated that in his private conversations with staff in the White House, they don't like their chances in today's race. Again, this doesn't affect the actual race, but it does point to poor internal poll numbers at the White House for Coakley.


**Update Three**

I just saw this posted by the Associated Press. They have already called the election for Scott Brown. Here is the first paragraph:

BOSTON – In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in a U.S. Senate election Tuesday that left President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt and marred the end of his first year in office.

18 comments:

pack04 said...

Andy,
I have this weird feeling about this election. Even though some people would call me pessimistic person (I would say realistic) for certain things I have a blind and perhaps stupid trust. One of those things is elections and their lack of corruption. However, with this vote I have a different feeling. There is too much riding on this vote, to much temptation to mess with things. I have no proof but I am just saying if there ever was a need for it, this would be it. Just too much temptation, too much need.

Andy D said...

I think if it is close tomorrow morning, your fears may be well founded. I would expect a replay of what happened in Minnesota.

pack04 said...

any word?

pack04 said...

all's I can saw now is:
Republicans don't f#@$ it up.

Seattle Dave said...

He seems like a pretty decent guy.

The sad part is two fold:
A) He voted FOR universal healthcare in Mass, which is arguably more liberal than the current bill

B) In 6 months, once the RNC is done courting him, they'll do what they've done to all the other good republican senators who have attempted to govern from the middle, call him a RINO and start working against his seat.

It's really a shame.

Andy D said...

I think your first point is a very good one. He is a Republican, but he is a North Eastern Republican.

As far as the second point, we will have to wait and see. I am very excited about him getting elected because it sticks a fork in a terrible bill. However, like any politician, he campaigned on one thing, let's see if he sticks to those promises. That's a lesson many Obama supporters are learning now.

Kram said...

And yet, PresBO (President Barack Obama) blames the election of Scott Brown on Bush. If he doesn't get it now, he never will.

pack04 said...

Kram nice to see a comment from you again.
I have to disagree with your comment a little bit. I think this is the quote you are talking about:

Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts but the mood around the country: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years but what's happened over the last eight years.

I don't disagree with Mr. Obama. People are angry and they voted with their anger no doubt. The same thing that happened in 2008. I know we are so use to Mr. Obama and others blaming everything on Mr. Bush but I am not so sure he was doing that this time. I think what he was saying is that 1.5 years ago people were angry from the previous 8 years and that anger got him into office. In the time since he has done nothing to change that anger (his self proclaimed B+ grade on Oprah might in reality be lower). Different people might be angry but there is still anger. Of course some of the same might still be mad. Hell people might be more mad than in November 2008.

I just don't think he is saying the hatred of Mr. Bush got Mr. Brown elected because that is a silly and a dumb statement and I don't think Mr. Obama is that dumb.

I think republicans really need to make sure they watch out and stay away from the just say no and Mr. Obama is wrong on everything attitude that the dems had 1.5 years ago. It is clear to see it is not a strong platform. (will use this again later)

Andy D said...

Pack, I think you are being just a little charitable to the President. I think that quote was an intentional attempt to shed some of the blame for the mood of the country. I think Democrats still believe they can campaign on "Bush Lied" and win elections. I don't think the voters care at this minute about what Bush did or didn't do. I think they are much more concerned with the state of our country TODAY.

Kram said...

Personally, after watching the President over the past year I don't think the President is that dumb either, but I think he thinks the American public is that dumb!

In MY opinion, he doesn't get it. This election was not about the past 8 years. The election of Scott Brown is not even about TODAY. It's about tomorrow and where President Obama and his Progressive Agenda is taking this country. His obvious lack of leadership has been evident since day one of his presidency. The citizens of Massachusetts had an opportunity to slow down the "Progressive Agenda" because they don't like it, not because of what happened 8 years ago. Yesterday we were told by the President that he didn't think he communicated well enough to the American people...as we have all said, sometimes actions speak louder than words.

One last comment on the quote you posted... if he wasn't trying to implicate Bush why not say that the anger was directed towards himself or Congress or even Government in general?

I've been around keeping tabs on Andy's posts. Usually by the time I am able to post my general comments have already been posted.

Seattle Dave said...

The election of Scott Brown had literally nothing to do with politics on a national level.

Don't kid yourself. It was no indictment on Obama's Health care reform/agenda. They just passed literally the same thing in the state of Mass, to which Scott Brown voted for, and was happy about.

Likewise, he utterly distanced himself form the words "republican," "GOP," and anything else relating to the right while he was campaigning. Barely even a mention. Nothing on his tour bus, nothing on his podiums, nada.

Mr. Browns election in Mass is about Him being a better candidate and coming across as that, than Ms. Coakley. He ran a smarter and more well thought out campaign than the democrat in Mass, and was rewarded for doing so.

To read anything other than that into it is ludicrous.

Andy D said...

Wow Dave. That is a pretty lonely position. I don't think I have seen any prominent Republican OR Democrat try to pass that story.

I hope the DNC leadership reads your comment and believes it.

Andy D said...

Karl Rove was just talking about this on FNC. You may disagree with his politics, but he knows how to read the political landscape. He points out:

1) Massachusetts last elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate in an open election in 1966.

2) There are a number of Democrats who have decided to retire instead of run for reelection. They don't want to face a loss in November.

I would add to Mr. Roves point the results of the New Jersey and Virginia elections. Both elected Republicans to states that we were told would now be blue for a generation.

The election became a national referendum. Obama campaigned there and lost. Brown campaigned on stopping Obama's health care. To read this as anything other than a message for the nation as a whole is to entirely misread the election.

Seattle Dave said...

Of course it's a lonely position. When you bring reason into a political debate, and look at what actually happened, you're going to be a lonely soul. Of which, after reading your next comments, you have very little of. And/or, you're just way to partisan to look closer at facts if they don't help your argument.

Of course neither left wing nutjobs or right wing idiots can say it. They are scrambling to find any way possible to spin it. That's politics.

But the facts remain. Brown is a centrist. He voted FOR a healthcare bill in Mass. that is arguable more liberal than the one positioned in the senate and house. He also actively distanced himself from the republican party while campaigning. You can't dispute either one of those facts.

That's why I said earlier that it'll be too bad when the GOP and the idiots running the show start calling him a RINO because of his policies.

Again, the sad part is that he's going to be forced into a position that does not benefit the people of Mass.

At some point, He's either going to have to sell out his centrist nature, and his platform, to the right wing idiots or he's going to have to stand up to them and hence, get lumped into this absurd notion of RINOs.

Either way, he loses. And that, in a nutshell, is everything wrong with politics today. Neither way has any benefit to the voter.

btw
(There have been plenty of people writing about this very thing. Likewise, there was a GOP poll ran in Mass that actually proved this point. The republican base in Mass voted for brown, the same % that voted against Obama in the national election. Meanwhile, the indys made up the rest. And when they were polled by the GOP, it was overwhelmingly more to do with the dislike of Coakley than it was a) Obamacare, b) republican ideals or c) Michael Jackson)

Sometimes Andy, it is lonely being in the middle with sanity as my guide, than being on either fringe finding reasons in everything and anything that can propel my argument forward.


The really sad part in all this is that the Supreme Court just marginalized the vote of the private citizen even more, with their crazy politics-strewn decision on stating that a non-living organization should have the same free-speech principals pertain to them as a living, breathing human being of this country.

Settle in Andy, their should be so much to write about in the upcoming years, since business can now infuse as much cash as they want to in elections. Since our vote is going to essentially mean nothing, the last way we will have any say in how our country is run will be via print.

Seattle Dave said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012203167.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2010012203176

Here's the article, FYI, in the Washington Post about the GOP's findings.

It's extremely interesting.

Don't cherry pick, read the entire thing. I also have a link to where you can DL it, but can't seem to copy/paste it.

Andy D said...

Dave,

My thoughts:

When you bring reason into a political debate, and look at what actually happened, you're going to be a lonely soul. Of which, after reading your next comments, you have very little of. And/or, you're just way to partisan to look closer at facts if they don't help your argument.

Really?

But the facts remain. Brown is a centrist. He voted FOR a healthcare bill in Mass. that is arguable more liberal than the one positioned in the senate and house. He also actively distanced himself from the republican party while campaigning. You can't dispute either one of those facts.

I don't know that I would call him a centrist, but I also wouldn't call him a conservative. He's a Republican. Like other Republicans, he and I agree on some things, and not on others.

btw
(There have been plenty of people writing about this very thing. Likewise, there was a GOP poll ran in Mass that actually proved this point. The republican base in Mass voted for brown, the same % that voted against Obama in the national election. Meanwhile, the indys made up the rest. And when they were polled by the GOP, it was overwhelmingly more to do with the dislike of Coakley than it was a) Obamacare, b) republican ideals or c) Michael Jackson)


Exit polling during the election listed "health care reform" as being the number one reason for voters going to the poll. More detailed polls are still being worked on, and I am sure we will read about them for a long time when they do get released.

I would not typically say a single election marks a trend. However, when you pair the Mass. election with the New Jersey and Virginia election, and the actions of a number of "moderate" Democrats over the last few weeks, I think there is a very clear trend.

The truth of the matter is that these elections form a trend, but not an irreversible one. The Democrats can salvage things and cut their losses in November. Or they can ignore them and face another 1994.

Andy D said...

I am going to read your article now. In the mean time, here is one for you to read. Fred Barnes argues against the type of interpretation you are trying to use.

pack04 said...

Kram after watching the state of the union address last night I might have to rethink my statement about the president not being that dumb.