Poll Shocker: Brown Surges Ahead in Senate Race

[No Elephants]

Source: Boston Herald

Poll shocker: Scott Brown surges ahead in Senate race
By Jessica Van Sack
Thursday, January 14, 2010 - Updated 0m ago

Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.

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.”

The poll shows Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, besting Coakley, the state’s attorney general, by 50 percent to 46 percent, the first major survey to show Brown in the lead. Unenrolled long-shot Joseph L. Kennedy, an information technology executive with no relation to the famous family, gets 3 percent of the vote. Only 1 percent of voters were undecided.




Read more: http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1225720&srvc=home&position=rated

---

Let's hope this poll was wrong. Thankfully, the vote is Tuesday, so Brown does not have much more time to gather momentum.

If it isn't wrong, among other things, the only health care reform that will pass will be the version Republicans want. So, maybe working with Snowe wasn't such a waste of time after all.

Coakley started the election campaign with a 31% lead over Brown. (Sound familiar?)

Coakley's been losing the debates. No surprise to me. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x15217

I honestly believe Coakley won the primary mostly because she was the only woman running. (IMO, Massachusetts Democrats are influenced by identity politics.)

As her poll numbers started sliding towards Brown's, her ads went negative. (Not personally negative, though. Just negative on positions, whicch I think is perfectly acceptable).

Obama recently did a video to support Coakley. I haven't seen it yet. Otherwise, he has not participated visibly.

Massachusetts got a reputation as being the bluest state in the nation. Maybe that is no longer true. If it is, the nation may have moved to the right quite a bit since November 2008.

Other tidbits from the poll question results:

64% think Coakley will win, even if they plan to vote for Brown. (I hope complacent Democrats hear about this poll and don't stay home Tuesday.)

The Kennedy endorsement hurt Coakley, as did Coakley's support of the health care reform bill.

[napi21]

1. I'm having a hard time believing these polls! The people of Mass

aren't about to elect a PUB! Masybe I*'m viewing this with blinders, but I don't think so. I guess we'll see soon.

[No Elephants]

8. I hope you're right. I've only ever had Democrats representing me in Massachusetts, on both

the state and federal levels (except for Governors). Our state legislature is about 95% Democrat. Currently, even our Governor is Democrat (Deval Patrick, whose campaign David Axelrod also ran.) His poll numbers have not been good, either, though.

I am very disappointed. And this is hard for me because my Rep, Mike Capuano, should have beat Martha in the primary, IMO. However, as AG, she had statewide name recognition, while he did not. (Uninformed voters!!) And, as I said, being a woman gave her an advantage in the race, which she freely admitted.

Like so many, I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

[Bitwit1234]

33. One thing people don't realize is

most of the poll companies are republican owned. And they make the statement that they poll mostly republicans, why, because in most of the off elections the republicans are most likely to be the ones that vote. And they are correct. Democrats traditionally sit on their butts. The republican don't. that is why they win so many races people wouldn't believe they would.

[No Elephants]

51. this poll was not taken by a poll company, but by Suffolk University. And a Dem group took a poll

showing Martha with less than 50% of the vote. While that poll showed Brown even lower, it was very close.

[sabrina 1]

58. Capuano is a much better Democrat than Coakley.

I too wish he had beaten her. He is very good on the issues and would have made a great Senator. Her, I am not too impressed with so far. Maybe the voters aren't either? People may come out and vote for her out of fear of a Repub. win but I doubt it will be with great enthusiasm. Capuano otoh, I could be enthusiastic about. Too bad he didn't get more support nationally. I think the party wanted Martha.

[No Elephants]

142. Bill Clinton endorsed Coakley, Others endorsed Capuano, but no one with that high a profile.

Saying anythign would have been inappropriate for Obama.

Kerry and most of the Kennedys stayed out it, though there were hard feelings about Martha beginning her campaign effort even before Kennedy died. Vicki has endorsed her now, though, and is working for her, because Vicki is just that loyal to the Party and that concerned that HCR pass. Ted Kennedy described health care again and again as "the cause of my life." Of course, he never say this bill, but maybe he would still think it better than nothing.

[horseshoecrab]

138. Everyone who can needs to get out to the polls for Martha

Capuano is my rep in congress too. Great guy.

My take on that is that Coakley had the Emily's List money to work with and saturated the market with herself.

If we can just get her elected we will be ok. We need that 60th vote. Got to have it. We need to think in terms of reality right here and now.

We shouldn't be in this position where she is being encroached upon by a freaking airhead. I mean seriously... the man's got nothing. He doesn't know anything about teabaggers? Oh? Why appear at one of their rallies then? The thought of Sen. Brown is kinda like the thought of Sen. Palin. :puke:

I wish one of the parents of Wrentham's King Philip High school kids would post a video of Scott's day trip to "speak" to the students.I've read that there was plenty of nasty language to the point where teachers were yelling at him to get off the stage and to clean up his language. Does this tape exist somewhere? Anybody know?

It's thrilling to think of him as Senator from MA... :sarcasm:

Good job No Elephants. Thanks for all that you've been doing.

horseshoecrab

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Many Of Us Are Tired Of Lying Dems And Economic Sodomy Against The Middle Class

I'm probably not the only one in Mass. that's utterly blown away by the behavior of the Democrats we elected, and has little stomach to pull the lever for someone who I know will &$#^ me. Obama's recent bald-faced lie that he never campaigned on the public option just snapped something in me. Imagine - he doesn't even care if there's tons of footage on the Internet showing that he's a rank liar!

For 17 years we've allowed the Democrats to play "we suck a little less than the Republicans" politics, and for 17 years we've plummeted into the abyss.

Enough. Coakley will probably win, but I'm sitting this one out.

[Tx4obama]

26. To sit it out and let a repig win is disgraceful! VOTE COAKLEY! n/t

[still_one]

92. You are absolutely right. Cutting off you nose to spite your fact. I have no tolerance for those

who cannot see the difference between the republicans and Democrats

it is naderisqe philosophy. "If I can't have it my way, let me try to insure that I hurt it for everyone"

yeath, that will show them, NOT

[No Elephants]

37. Manny, I feel your pain, but I plan to vote and I hope you do.

As I posted elsewhere on this thread, I am very tired of voting for the lesser to two evils, but this guy's postitions are horrific. No morning after pill for rape victims--and they should pay for their own kits? Plus, he is both an airhead and a liar.

Please think about it.

[horseshoecrab]

153. No Morning After pill for rape victims...

That is not the pro-choice position he claims to espouse. Making room in the law for medical workers to choose which drugs they feel morally able to give to a rape victim is called being anti-choice.

horseshoecrab

[Iowa]

57. Yep. Unless there are consequences, there will be no end to the Obama's of the world...

But they have us between a rock and a hard place. If we continue rewarding their lies and their treachery, they'll screw us even harder next time. If we punish them, the Republicans will screw us even worse. Despicable, unprincipled, sociopaths.

[pnwmom]

60. "We suck less" is important. Many progressives wouldn't vote for Gore,

on the presumption that he and Bush were Tweedledee and Tweedledum. We saw where that led us for 8 years.

[seaglass]

119. Hey I like that. DU should make t-shirts, Democrats: We Suck Less.

I'd buy one :-)

[BlueDemKev]

128. Amen!

Anyone remember this?

Nader won 97,000 votes in Florida back in 2000. Al Gore "lost" the state by 537 votes.

WAKE UP, PROGRESSIVES!!! Half the pie is better than NOTHING!!

[pundaint]

63. Don't just sit out, vote against sucking less. Maybe if the Dems lose just this one

they will smarten up, act like Democrats again, and ultimately lose fewer seats next November. Send a message yourself, vote to affirm that the current Democratic poseurs are less that we will stand for. But then we really must raise up a Progressive to beat that ass-clown Brown in '12!

[Enthusiast]

67. If enough Repiglicans are elected

President Obama won't have to worry about those tons of footage on the internet because the internet as we know it will become a thing of the past. Listen, in the interest of controlling the flow of information these corporations must be able to influence internet content as they do TV content.

[Beer Snob-50]

98. well then you deserve having a repub representing you

you have little stomach to pull the lever for someone who you know will f*** you? well then lets elect someone who will make it totally impossible to get something better than we already have. the repubs for the last year have made it clear that nothing is better than something and that they will wait until they can get back in power.

your attitude sucks, and you could get what you deserve.

don't hand me this shit that you are a good democrat because your words tell me otherwise.

[MannyGoldstein]

100. 17 Years Of Voting For Far-Right Democrats: How's That Working For Us

I think that things have gotten very, very bad. What do you think?

[Beer Snob-50]

101. i think that we have not had a real leftie prez since carter.

i think also that 12 years of republican rule have given us squat. i believe that obamas plans will help in the long run and we must give him every opp to do so.

[No Elephants]

143. And eight years of Clinton gave us repeal of Glass Steagall, Nafta, welfare "reform, DADT and DOMA,

resisting subpoenas, scandals nd perjury, among other things.

And even Gore would have given us Vice President Joe Leiberman. He and Palin both supported McCain.

The gap between the Parties that was once large is closing all the time/

[No Elephants]

129. If Brown gets elected, that will send the message that the country

wants to go even further right.

Consider at least writing in a Democrat you like. Dead or alive, eligible or not, so that your voice is heard clearly and not misinterpreted. Staying home is not a clear message.

[blondeatlast]

141. Ted Kennedy=far right? You aren't even logical. Meh. nt

[Highway61]

111. Did you vote for Obama?

If you did, then "sitting this one out" is walking away from your own vote.

[alcibiades_mystery]

113. Silly duck

Manny didn't vote for Obama!

:rofl:

[MannyGoldstein]

114. was one of his earliest supporters, voted for him, gave him money

I am walking away from my vote. We were lied to.

[dionysus]

118. pardon me if i don't believe you voted for or gave money to him....

[MannyGoldstein]

167. It's A Matter Of Record - DU Has A Serach Function

Perhaps you should get up off your butt and check before calling someone a liar.

[BlueDemKev]

120. Obama IS Liberal

Manny, Obama is the most liberal president we've had since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Please look at and compare the records of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, & Obama. We have a great, progressive president who is doing the best he can against a well-funded, well-organized group of conservative special-interest groups.

[No Elephants]

130. Obama is, by his own words, a New Democrat. New Democrats are not liberals.

You can argue for him as much as you like, but he is not a liberal. Why do you think Rahm N. Noodles sneers about the "left of the left" "talking about people who demanded at least a public option. Terms like that used to be reserved for Socialists and Communists--and they used to come from Republicans, not a Democratic President's chief of staff.

[BlueDemKev]

171. By today's standards....

...Obama is a liberal by American standards today. His voting record in the Senate was--what--the second most-left of all 100 members? He is more liberal than Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, or Truman was.

[girl gone mad]

172. 2nd most liberal? Where do you get this nonsense?

Let me guess.. stupid National Journal?

Try again, this time with facts:

http://mostliberalsenator.blogspot.com/

[horseshoecrab]

149. I agree

BlueDemKev,

You and I agree about Obama and what he is up against!

horseshoecrab

[MannyGoldstein]

168. One Of Us Is Living In An Altered Reality nt

[BlueDemKev]

115. If you "sit this one out"....

....you will effectively hand the reigns of power to the Limbaugh-Palin-Beck-Hannity-Bachmann Club!!!!

This upset defeat in Massachusetts will lead to a Republican avalanche in November and the END of everything we've fought so hard for over the past three decades!!

What do you think Ted Kennedy would want you to do? Sit home and let the brigade of tea-bagging right-wing nutjobs take over this country???

GET OUT & VOTE FOR COAKLEY!!!!!!!!!

[dionysus]

116. color me surprised (not), you have excuses not to vote dem.

:rofl:

[karynnj]

121. Do you think Gore would have been different than Bush?

I read your reasons for not supporting Coakley, but the question is even if all the most negative things past and future are as bad as can be, will she vote better than Brown? Your posts are always among the most thoughtful that I have seen, so I can see the depth of your disappointment with the Democrats.

In 2007 and 2008, I wondered if I could phone bank or at the worst points, vote for Hillary. My answer came when Bush vetoed the SCHIP renewal. No Democrat would have done that - at that moment I knew I would do both. There is a difference in the parties. (In 2002, I had made the same decision on voting for the ultra corrupt Torrecelli, but was greatly relieved when Lautenberg replaced him.)

Consider how bad you might feel whenever we lost cloture votes getting 59, with Brown siding with the Republicans.

[No Elephants]

144. We don't know, but what if Gore died? VP Lieberman, Bush III and McCain I.

And that's who Gore picked.

[karynnj]

157. True, but that was before he underwent the personality change

that seemed to happen with 911 and then worsen with his rejection in 2004.

[closeupready]

132. You have every right to vote or not vote.

I don't blame you for feeling betrayed, because, frankly, we have been betrayed.

[blondeatlast]

139. You are going to be very lonely in my exclusive club. You are the only member after

7 1/2 years at DU.

Yech.

[stevenleser]

151. Is that the club that starts with an "I" and ends with an "E" ?

If so, I'm thinking of introducing him to mine too.

[blondeatlast]

154. Yup. It now has one member. Stupid like MG's isn't worthy of my attention. nt

[seattle_blue]

20. How many of you are aware

I just did a Wiki on the newspaper source the Boston Herold. How many of you are aware of the fact that the Herold is owned by one Rupert Murdoch? Just asking..........

[seattle_blue]

21. Sorry for my misspelling

HERALD.......I'm a little tipsy right now.......

[MannyGoldstein]

75. It's Not Owned By Murdoch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Herald#Independent_ownership

[nxylas]

84. It's still a right-wing rag, though

That doesn't mean that everything it publishes is a lie, but you have to bear their bias and spin in mind, exaggerating Republican victories and downplaying Democratic ones.

[elocs]

81. That's what "edit" is for, if you didn't know. n/t

[seattle_blue]

148. cool thanx

When it comes to electronic computer machine boxes I'm about as smart as a republican running the government.

[No Elephants]

32. The poll is by Suffolk University, though. And the only counter poll that is this up to date was

done by Massachusetts Democrats. That shows Martha ahead, but not by much. TX posted it downthread.

BTW, I do know about the Herald. I would not even have used the Herald as a source, but their story was online when I googled after hearing about the poll on TV.

At this point, for me, it's not about making ourselves feel better, but about shocking Massacusetts DUers to the polls Tuesday. It's easy for Massachusetts Democrats to feel they don't need o get to the polls. And, for health reasons, I was considering that myself, until I heard this news.

[pnwmom]

61. The polls show a tie. Nothing has changed. No surge, just the same tie

that is showing up in other polls -- within the margin of error you can't say who's ahead.

[No Elephants]

131. He was 15 points behind only a couple of days before this poll. That's a surge.

And he started at 31 points behind.

[stopbush]

40. The Herald is a Rupert Murdoch paper. Get a grip, people!

[No Elephants]

55. Suffolk Univ. took the poll. Everyone is reporting the same numbers & See Reply 32.

With this thread, I am trying to promote turnout by DU Massachusetts Dems, not hysteria.

[pundaint]

62. It's not for Brown, it's against the lousy bill, and the way it was created, and how

nobody in the Democratic Party has enough commitment to the People to stand up and say "No it's not a good enough deal for the People," and act on it. The Democratic candidate will support the bill that many of us think will do far more harm than good, Brown will try to defeat it, and we can take the seat back with a Progressive challenger in '12. It will be easier to get a Progressive Democrat to challenge in '12 if the seat is in Republican hands.

[No Elephants]

133. I disagree. If people were against Brown, but for a more liberal bill, they would

they would not say they planned to vote for Brown.

Ironically, Brown has run on "change."

Massachusetts does not change Senators that quickly, Republican or Democrat.

And Martha is running on a fairly Progressive platform. Thing is, once she gets there, she'll vote with the Democratic Caucus and her fellow Senator, DLC member Kerry.

This race has shaken the DNC. It's thrown a ton of ads on the air. However, I fear the message will be "Democrats need to lean even further to the right if they want to win elections." Not: "Stop the corporatist crap."

[DeadEyeDyck]

170. good point

I think a lot of Mass'ers are not voting for Brown but against this HC bill.

[hack89]

69. They have a history of electing republican governors

and because it is a special election voter turnout is hard to judge. Like many New England elections, it will depend on the Independent voter turn out - could be they are not as engaged as more partisan voters.

[No Elephants]

134. Yes, but all the Republican Governors I recall ran as liberals-including Mitt.

Mitt had also run for Kennedy's seat as a liberal. Said he was pro-choice, stronger on gay rights than Kennedy, etc.

And they know the legislature is something like 96% Democrat and can override any gubernatorial veto, if they choose.

[krkaufman]

70. Governor Mitt Romney? n/t

[No Elephants]

135. Please see Reply 134.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jasi2006]

97. The person with the "Kennedy" name should get out to save the race for the Dems. nt

[Ian David]

105. Donate money and volunteer to phonebank from home

Donate: https://coakley.zissousecure.com/contribute/PFP/iandavidb

Phonebank from home: http://my.barackobama.com/coakleyn2n

[NewJeffCT]

108. They elected Romney, don't forget

and Weld before that.

[No Elephants]

137. It's not that simple. Please see Reply 134. For one thing, Weld was as pro-women's rights as anyone.

[Arkana]

2. Suffolk also called Corzine by 9 in NJ and Obama winning

the MA primary. Clinton won it by 11. Their record is nothing short of atrocious.

All the polling firms that have shown a close race or a Brown lead are either Republican (Rasmussen) or have screwed up special elections really badly (Suffolk, PPP).

[Bumblebee]

5. let's hope it likewise proves to be

kiss of death...

[No Elephants]

38. We can rationalize after the election. Now, it's important to make sure Dems vote Tuesday.

[Drunken Irishman]

3. The polls are all over the place.

[No Elephants]

39. But the two most recent show Brown ahead or damn close--and Democrats did the close one.

[WriteDown]

4. NE has it exactly right..

Its the debates that have killed Coakley.

[liberalpragmatist]

7. What happened at the debates?

What did she do that turned people off?

[WriteDown]

9. Just did not perform well...

You can find them on youtube.

[Arkana]

14. I thought she did fairly well. Brown's whiny--he kept retreating behind his family

and bitching about Coakley's attack ads.

[No Elephants]

30. Yes, attacking him on his political positions is sooooo unfair. Waaaaaaaa

[No Elephants]

15. Look at the D.U. thread that I linked in the OP, about the primary debates.

Martha does not come across as the brightest bulb in the chandelier. All three other Democrats in the primary left her in the dust, IMO. And, while Brown is no intellectual giant, he's slicker at concealing his shortcomings.

[No Elephants]

10. You've been watching the debates? And NE has it WRONG. She's still better than Brown.

[WriteDown]

16. Yep...

Nothing about better or worse. Just how she looked in the debates. Your analysis on that was spot on.

[No Elephants]

18. You're watching the Massachusetts debates from Texas? Seriously?

I'd be surprised about your agreeing me, except my post was made during the primaries. Now that the debates are between Coakley and Brown, I am not surprised you agree.

But Brown is, if anything, more of an intellectual lightweight than Martha. He's just slicker at hiding how big a loser he is. In other words, a typical Republican.


On edit: I forgot to mention: not only is he slick, but he outright lies. Again, typical Republican.

[WriteDown]

19. I started watching them online this week when it started

getting national attention. Just wanted to know why its so close. I have little knowledge of either candidate outside what I saw and a lot of that was just clips.

[No Elephants]

25. You have to bear in mind Brown simply lies when he's uncomfortable with the truthful answer to a

question. Like saying he never heard of the Tea Party movement, when, he fact, he appeared at one of their rallies. As I said, typical Republican.

I hope to heaven the poll is wrong.

[liberalpragmatist]

6. Actually Obama's approval ratings in those polls are still pretty good

That Suffolk poll has his favorability rating at 55%. And the PPP poll the other day had his approval rating at 57%.

The problems are...

(1) Congress is unpopular, the Massachusetts state Democrats are unpopular, the governor is unpopular, all of which is dragging her down.

(2) She also ran a completely complacent campaign and in the dead of winter many non-political types are not engaged, at all. That's true in ANY special election and even more so right now.

(3) On top of all that, MA Dems are actually a fairly fractious lot, with lots of conservative Democrats who have an ambivalent/often hostile relationship with the upper-income, Boston-area liberals. And a lot of blue-collar, conservative Democrats who Coakley isn't connecting with. At all.

(4) Lots of MA residents are independents, and though they're liberal-leaning and usually vote Dem, they have a tradition of ticket-splitting. And the non-political types tend to believe things like "spending is out of control," and "divided government works best," etc., which is further adding momentum for Brown.

I think Coakley will win, but it may be VERY tight. What really worries me is that Brown is the one who seems to have all the momentum, with Coakley stalled at just under 50%.

What's frustrating is that special elections are extremely difficult to poll and forecast. Coakley could well win by +5 points. Or she could lose by a similar margin. It's really hard to tell.

[No Elephants]

12. Who said anything about Obama's ratings being bad? And Mass. Democrats are no more fractious than

Democrats around the nation.

[Zhade]

47. One thing I'll never understand -- the oxymoron that is a "conservative Democrat".

NT!

[No Elephants]

52. A conservative Democrat is a DINO. Unfortunately, there are too many of those, IMO.

[David Zephyr]

54. Sort of like the conservative Democrat that resides in the White House, huh?

I'm sure he'll give a good speech to the troops at the GOP retreat.

[msongs]

13. election will not be certified until after the HRC vote according to MA law (dKos) nt

[No Elephants]

17. I'll check Kos, but, as of a day or so ago, that was up in the air.

[No Elephants]

23. No, that is not what Kos said.

"Massachusetts' top election official says it could take weeks to certify the results of the upcoming U.S. Senate special election. That delay could let President Barack Obama preserve a key 60th vote for his health care overhaul even if the Republican who has vowed to kill it wins Democrat Edward M. Kennedy's former seat."

"Could" is different from "will," and I don't think anyone knows the date of the HCR bill vote anyway.

As soon as there is a winner in the race, Coakley or Brown will got to Washington. This is going to put pressure on Democrats to hurry up and vote. That could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on who is stronger in reconciliation.

[suston96]

22. Boston Herald is a Republican rag. Always has been. Try this.......

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/10/senate_poll_coakley_up_15_points/

Well, the Democratic rag is better informed.

[No Elephants]

27. The Globe poll is older. The new poll is by Suffolk. Is Suffolk Republican, too?

[Tx4obama]

24. January 14th Poll: Blue Mass Group/R2000 ---Coakley 49, Brown 41 ----Coakley +8 n/t

[No Elephants]

28. Still too close for comfort. Anyone living in Massachusetts needs to get to the polls Tuesday,

even if they have to crawl there. I'm just out of the hospital, so I may be crawling myself. Luckily, the polls are near me and I have the flexibility to go on off hours.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. Remember that this is Massachusetts, where something very much like the

Senate health care bill is already in force.

I do not find it unimaginable that people are protesting the idea of something similar to the expensive, coercive system they have going national.

[No Elephants]

53. Yes, but Massachusetts still seems to be embracing a man who is callous to rape victims.

No contraception and pay for your own rape kit.

The blue state may as well be voting for Dummya. That's pretty startling.

[treestar]

160. I hope they enjoy screwing us out of everything else, then

There will be 41 Repukes, so we might as well just hang it up and enjoy the pic threads.

[SoapBox]

31. NPR was simply "gushing" over him...

Well how could he go wrong, when news like NPR today was simply all a fluster, with the one time centerfold!

...please. And, it will be just typical for the lemings to vote him in...

You will certainly NOT get what you hope for...He is being portrayed as a conservative-Dem or a moderate-Repub BUT in fact, he's a hardcore, Righty Wing, Rushpub.

[No Elephants]

41. Since Bushco, NPR is a stealth FOX a lot of the time.

Same is true even of PBS sometimes. For instance, why did Rooney get not one, but two, shows on PBS?

"War on Christmas" in Massachusetts? That's what she claimed when the school wanted to get that boy evaluated after he drew something that disturbed the teacher. And she treated the father's version of that incident as gospel.

[Tx4obama]

34. Brown is a snake...

Brown goes around bragging that he drives an old pickup truck with 200,000 miles on it BUT he neglects to tell people that he OWNS FIVE PROPERTIES

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/ma-senate-candidate-brown_n_422399.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/ma-senate-candidate-brown_n_422399.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/ma-senate-candidate-brown_n_422399.html

Pass the link around and get the word out to all the people in Massachusetts!

[No Elephants]

36. Yes. See also Reply 25. He's a typical Republican turd.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

136. There is no good reason to vote for Brown. None.

[notesdev]

35. Doesn't surprise me

If Coakley ran any worse a campaign, we'd have to rename her Mondale.

[No Elephants]

43. Your posts, like Write Down's, never surprise me.

[Mithreal]

42. Because the magical 60 vote number will always be used as an excuse?

wrt to "the only health care reform that will pass"

When are Dems going to shrug off that myth?

"the nation may have moved to the right quite a bit"

My little segment of the world/people includes those who believe Dem leaders and Obama have betrayed us. It is not so much a move to the right but disgust with Dem excuses. Where else do people have to go? I'll tell you, fight harder, apathy or the other party.

[No Elephants]

45. If you recall my posts on the same subject, you will know I am no hero worshipper.

And, I feel that the nation has indeed moved further to the right, thanks to Democrats, who have espoused a lot of Republican political and economic philosophy and sold it to Democrats. In other words, I probably would fit in in your segment of the world. But Scott Brown is the type of Republican who thinks hospitals should deny after the fact contraception to rape victims and rape victims should have to pay for their own kits. Martha Coakley would never support that. And, as AG, she brought a suit against the federal government re: DOMA.

[Mithreal]

46. Believe me when I say I appreciate you. Just questioning the ideas.

[No Elephants]

50. Thank you (and back at you).

[Zhade]

49. Well, uh, he did -- and lied to our faces about it.

"I didn't campaign on the public option"

They only have themselves to blame for people feeling betrayed.

[Nothing Without Hope]

44. I live in MA, and I'm telling you, the Coakley ads have been HORRIBLE.

They have been on constantly, they are repetitive and annoying, and they have the feel of attack ads. It's painfully ironic that a Rethug candidate is making Bambi-eyes and bleating about mean, nasty, unfair attack ads, but that has been working for him. Whoever is in charge of Coakley's TV ads has really messed up her campaign. Worse, when she comes on at the end of each ad and says that she approves of it, it sounds like she likes attack ads, hardly the message she should be sending.

Coakley is hardly a worthy successor to Ted Kennedy, but I never thought she'd undermine her own position to this point. Brown and his corporatist supporters have been quick to paint him as a populist knight enduring unfair attacks, thus demonstrating an immunity to gag-inducing irony. Let's all hope Coakley's campaign improves.

[No Elephants]

48. Seems like his whining has convinced you of a falsehood.

Coakley's ads attack Brown on his political positions and he does the same to her, but he whines and she doesn't. Moreover, her ads have been straightforward, while his have been misleading. Hell, he kicked off his campaign with a video of JFK, as though he (Brown) were a Democrat running in a blue state for Ted's seat, instead of a Republican doing that.

Attacking a political candidate's political positions is perfectly fair and legitimate. Her ads have not gone after his personal life, not once. And he's been attacking her political positions all along, including misleadingly. The only difference is that she has not whined about it.

[Bill219]

56. The Teabaggers on Twitter are orgasmic over a new telephone poll

by Pajamas Media where they claimed to have polled only a sampling of 20% repukes and they claim that Brown comes out 15 points up

Here is the link that is being circulated on twitter

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2010/01/14/wtf-scott-brown-up-by-15-in-pajamas-media-telephone-phone-only-20-sampled-are-republicans/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


Then there's this guy

http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2010/01/14/ma-senate-race-poll-scott-brown-trounces-martha-coakley

New social media polling data suggests Republican Scott Brown will trounce Democrat Martha Coakley in US Senate Race

------------------------------------------

I'm donating some more money to Martha tomorrow and putting some time in on the phone banks.

Brown has to be stopped

[pnwmom]

59. It's a TIE, period, as long as it's within the margin of error.

But that's worrisome enough.

[No Elephants]

140. That is not how the margin or error works. Besides that, even a tie in Massachusetts for U.S. Senato

is jaw-dropping.

Turnout will be everything (one of my reasons for this thread). Their base is stirred up and hell bent on stopping the health care bill; our base is not stirred up.

The situation should not be explained away. It's easy for Democrats in Massachusetts to be complacent. I want to shake them out of their complacency, not reassure them.

[pundaint]

65. Think of it as a 2 x 4 to get the donkey's attention

[Mithreal]

66. good answer

:applause:

[No Elephants]

145. What if the donkey interprets a Brown win as a signal to go further right if wants to win elections?

Staying home is not a good idea, IMO. At worst, go to the polls and write in Franklin Roosevelt or whatever name you think sends the message you want.

[NecklyTyler]

68. Both sides better lawyer up, this one is going to court over a recount

A drawn out recount would work to our advantage. Paul Kirk is a sitting Democrat, and has stated he supports health care reform. As long as we keep him in the seat, we can still beat the repukes filibusters

[customerserviceguy]

91. Maybe, maybe not

A Repuke winning in Massachusetts would send shock waves through Congress, and we might just lose one of the other sixty votes besides Kirk.

It will surely scare the pants off of Blue Dogs in the House, they'll face the choice of just resigning so they can vote for this steaming pile of manure of a HCR bill, or backing away from it, and hoping that their voters have short memories come November. I predict that the Senate language on abortion funding will be what comes out of committee, and Blue Dogs will use the rationale that it's not Stupak, and not good enough for them, that will kill it.

This whole process has been like one of those games you play with a water balloon, where each side takes a step backwards after each catch, and goes through wild gyrations to make sure the balloon doesn't burst when it's tossed to them. Eventually one side will go too far, and the balloon will be uncatchable.

[Vermontgrown]

71. Before

the Democrats can even straighten out the mess the repukes made over the last ten years, the people of Massachusets are going to put themselves into a hole so deep no one will ever dig them out.

[depakid]

72. The polls are all over the board-

Some honestly, some dishonestly attempting to influence public opinion rather than reflect it.

All the while, the corporate media plays Americans for suckers- suckers who are all to willing and eager to be taken along for the ride.

[deacon]

73. I don't know why Dem candidates won't ask their foes "do you agree with Rush?" and push the ...

...association. If you are going to challenge an opponent- challenge them!

[No Elephants]

146. Brown was asked about the Tea Baggers. He lied and said he'd never heard of them.

In reality, he spoke at one of their Massachusetts meetings.

[rasputin1952]

74. Whle polls can be interesting at times, the only ones that matter

are the ones people walk into, (or avoid), on election day.

The good people of MA will decide this race, and if D's show up at the polls, when people mention "brown", they will only think of the color of an ugly pair of shoes...;)

[No Elephants]

147. The purpse of this thread is to get Massachusetts DUers to the polls.

In Massachusetts, it is easy for a Democrat to become complacent and/or lazy, thinking staying home will not matter.

The idea is to shake them up.

[border_town]

76. The Boston Herald has always been right leaning.

I would love to see the demographics of the polls. Which sections of the state are they polling?

[unhappycamper]

80. Correction.

The Boston Herald is the Faux Noise of the newspaper industry. Unreliable, unreasonable and just plain stupid.

[No Elephants]

150. The Herald did not do the poll. Please see the OP. Besides, as I posted upthread,

A group consisting solely of Massachusetts Democrats did a poll and found Coakley had a lead of only 8 points, That is shocking too, considering her lead was 15 only a couple of days earlier, and 31 at the outset. And, in a special election, all will depend upon who turns out. I am not sure what the point is of posting that the poll is probably wrong. It ways what it says and Massachusetts Democrats at DU and elsewhere need to be worried enough about what it says to get to the damn polls.

[Mass]

77. Suffolk got us Obama winning the MA primary and Corzine winning by 9.

They are wildly disfunctional.

Note they are also divergent from the latest Rasmussen poll (not a Democratic poll), that got MA supporting the healthcare reform and Coakley with much higher rating (and it was only 2 days ago).

It is not that they are tilted RW, it is is that they tend to be very wrong.

This said, each poll I have seen has some wild guessing about who will vote in nearly every single vote. The particularity of this one is to have a sample very tilted toward Cape Cod and the South east of the state compared to other polls (33 % of the pool rather than around 20 %). They may of course be correct, but not very likely.

[pattmarty]

78. I have said at DU before that if the Dems lose this one OR it is.............

............even a CLOSE win for Coakley, the Dems better get off their asses real quick and start doing something for the working/middle class. The Republicans were blind with Bush in 06 & 08 and now the Dems are in the same position, turning a blind eye to a tsunami coming their way. I was like most here and thought the Va & NJ races were an anomaly. If this happens the Dems may in fact lose one or possibly both houses in 2010. The people are pissed from us liberals to the teabaggers for NEITHER party doing shit to represent them.

[Krashkopf]

79. As much as I want Congress to KILL THE BILL . . .

I can't bring myself to hope for Brown to win. I'll have to root for Coakley, and then hope the Progressive Caucus saves us from the horrendous Health Care "Reform" bill.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

82. He's probably got many women voters because of his nude center fold!

our candidate looks boring

[Ed76638]

83. no you rubes you rubes you fucking rubes

He gets to be the underdog, even if when he's elected, he's going to be the cheerleader for corporate interests?



motherfucking nubs

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

85. Respect for Ted Kennedy alone should turn out Dems to pay their last respects to him

If Coakley isn't exciting enough, that's how I would rally the vote. Run ads that say, fulfill Teddy's dream for healthcare at last. Vote Dem.

[marshall]

89. Unfortunately there is another Kennedy on the ballot that may confuse voters

Many voters will have never known a time when Kennedy wasn't their senator. And now in an odd clusterfuck a Joseph Kennedy is running as a spoiler in this race.

It's hard to believe there wasn't somebody better to run in this legacy seat, or that some advisors couldn't be flown in to help Coakley get her act together.

[No Elephants]

152. According to the poll, the endorsement of the Kennedys hurt Coakley.

That was a poll question.

[madrchsod]

87. i noticed the herald is a brown cheerleader

anything that they publish on this race has to be suspect

[old mark]

88. My understanding of this is that Coakley ran a stupid. lazy campaign, did not

even go out and solicit votes till a few days ago because she is a Democrat and ASSUMES she will win by default. Her advisors advised her very poorly and she listened to them.

Democrats seem to assume people will want us in office, and that we don't have to work to get elected, and this is the result. Time to get a little reality, because this election year is just starting and we MUST WIN!

mark

[Rockholm]

90. Brown is Mitt Romney's Butt Boy. This is a referendum on Romney 2012.

All of Romney's key people are running this campaign. This is the campaign he wanted when he ran against Kennedy in 1994. This is similar to Bush Jr. taking on Daddy's unfinished business in Iraq.
Scott Brown is an anti-gay, anti choice candidate who will be a NOTHING in DC should he be elected.

If anyone in the Coakley campaign is reading this, they need to remind voters of the deep disdain Mittens had for Massachusetts, mocking the state at every turn. THIS IS WHO IS RUNNING BROWN'S CAMPAIGN. Massachusetts haters.

That said, the Coakley campaign has not done a good job at all. Shades of every other female candidate for statewide office.

On a final note....all of my Republican friends in town gave money to and plan to vote for Coakley. Remember, they want good things to happen for Massachusetts.

[ElmoBlatz]

93. Can we PLEASE dispense with the anti-gay slurs?

Butt Boy? c'mon. Really?

[Rockholm]

96. I am gay and I approve of this message.

[Divine Discontent]

109. people who are knocked down as a culture often believe there's nothing wrong with saying what the

oppressive bigots call them, and they use the terms. I repeatedly hear "dicksucker" as an insult from Gay guys to ridicule people they don't like, and I think, um.... well, you should get the point. If calling someone BB offends lots of people, maybe don't say it in reference to put down people that tend to hate us. Jussayin'

[No Elephants]

155. Gee, you missed the anti-female slur.

[Rockholm]

161. Do tell....where was that "slur" as you put it?

[Rockholm]

173. Just as I figured, no slur.

Or at least you could not defend yourself.
If you were at all implying something in my "female" comment, then you do not know Massachusetts. Female candidates for statewide have always run poor campaigns. Swift, O'Brien and now Coakley.

[bread_and_roses]

94. It's all about health care

people hate this Bill. Whatever the polls say about overall numbers re: the health care Bill, the people who have to work and turn out for the Ds - including progressives and union members - are deeply, deeply disillusioned and unhappy with this Bill. IMHO, Obama's embracing the so-called "Cadillac" tax was the final straw for many. Especially ordinary working people - teachers, firefighters - know they are getting screwed with it. Everyone here knows what progressives think of it. And lots of low-information voters know they are getting screwed by the Banksters and the Insurance Vampires even if they don't know exactly how and who's to blame - and are wildly flailing out just ready to support anyone different than who's in there now (I use the term "low-information voter" with no intent to malign - how the hell do people working two and three jobs and still struggling to pay the bills or laid off and totally broke have the time/energy/heart to pay a lot of attention? - the Neo-Con/Lib economic policies in this country have done a real good job of making sure that most voters are "low-information" since that works real well for their Corporate Paymasters).

If Coakley loses you can lay the blame squarely on this horrible health care muddle and the lousy job the Ds have done in channeling the populist anger over the Banksters where it belongs. Even with my low opinion of the Democratic Party in general I never thought I'd see the day when the Ds would be such political fools as to allow themselves to painted as the friend of Banksters and the Rs to paint themselves as economic champions of the people - but that's what's happened. They have no one but themsleves - including Obama - to blame.

[Faryn Balyncd]

106. You know things are bad when the only hope to stop Baucus-Lieber-Care is to elect a RW Rethug in MA!

And when progressives who know better will not draw the line and demand a non-corporatist bill with a public option, instead of acquiescing to a pseudo-"reform" that rapes the middle class, cementing a perverse "corporate-insurance-only" paradigm that will force them forever to pay for unaffordable, wasteful, inadequate care.

If Coakley wins, and the Democratic Party passes the corporate-insurance-only mandate, the middle class nationally will not be so kind. They will be driven by this terrible bill into the waiting arms of Republican pseudo-populist demagogues.

Our only hope to stop this is the waning liklihood of a coalition of principled Democrats standing with Slaughter/Woolsey/Lee/Kucinich/Massey/DeFazio against the Senate/White House, or, sadly, a RW Republican winning John F. Kennedy's old seat.

[rox63]

95. Boston Herald = Right Wing Rag

I would even line the birdcage with their lies. I'm a life-long Mass native, and I know there is no way Brown is winning that seat. And any Dems who sit out this race because Coakley doesn't pass their "purity test" are part of the problem.

[bread_and_roses]

110. I don't think it's even much about Coakley - I think it's about populist rage

People know they are getting screwed. The Ds have allowed themselves to be tagged as the Friends of Banksters and the Party that's going to MANDATE that people BUY insurance that they can't afford - and then they wonder that ordinary voters strike out and reject their candidate?

[blackbear79]

99. Will Progressives stay home

Much of the pissed off base may stay home. Students are not mobilized in January the way they are in November. The right is over flowing with emotion. Coakley's poll numbers may be artificially high. Pollsters may not have correct models for this election.

[graywarrior]

102. Boston Herald is Fox News

eom

[No Elephants]

156. Read the OP. Suffolk University did the poll.

[rucky]

103. Nate Silver: OK, It's a Toss-Up

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/ok-its-toss-up.html

"Earlier today I tweeted about how there wasn't enough evidence to describe the Massachusetts special election as a "toss-up", as some other forecasters have done, based on the information available to us at that time.

Well, now there's some new evidence. And it isn't good for Martha Coakley.

In particular, the evidence is a Suffolk University poll that shows the Republican, Scott Brown, ahead by 4 points, 50-46.

Suffolk is a fairly average pollster, and I'm sure if we looked long and hard enough, we could develop some critiques of the poll. But there are no particular red flags and ... c'mon, let's not be silly, because there are a lot of other polls that you'd also have to critique in order to discredit the notion that the race is too close to call, including the PPP poll that showed Brown up by one point a week ago (since which time he's almost certainly gained ground), the Rasmussen poll that showed a 2-point race for Coakley, and Coakley's internals, which reportedly have shown her ahead by just 2-5 points. Look at what we get when take a simple linear trendline of all public polls..."

[gorekerrydreamticket]

124. No way, Martha will blow it out....n/t

[IsItJustMe]

104. People are going to be pointing at Obama and this HCR bill of his and Dems for years to come

[DFW]

107. What does the Boston Globe say?

I'll panic when they say so, too--not just because the Herald says so.

[No Elephants]

158. You'd know the answer if you read he thread.

The Globe poll was a few days earlier. It showed a 15 pt lead for Coakley. BUT, an all-Democratic Massachusetts group took a poll at the same time as did Suffolk University. The group showed plus 8 for Martha. Anyway you slice it, though, he rose a minimum of 7 points in two or three days, and he election was still four or five days away. See also Reply 103. Nate Silver says a toss up. Feel any better now?

I can't understand all these remarks about the Herald. I know it leans right, but that was what was available online right after I heard about the poll numbers on TV. The Herald can't possibly lie about the numbers in the Suffolk poll that everyone else is reporting on at the same time.

[freddie mertz]

112. This is very disturbing. We should be worried about it, but not panic. YET.

Mass has a long history of "reactionary" voting... this is probably a reaction to the HCR and other "drift" in the party, mixed with a weak Dem candidate.

I am contacting my MA family and friends to find out more.

[BlueDemKev]

117. I AM Panicking....

...I hate to admit it, but I am. I will never forgive the people of Massachusetts if they give Ted Kennedy's old seat to a Republican, especially with health care reform hanging in the balance.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

126. that's crazy to think that....n/t

[treestar]

159. You stated exactly what i was going to post

so I don't have to bother. :hi:

There would be 41 Repukes and we'd get nothing more at all. No help for the economy, nada.

[mvd]

164. I can't even imagine Coakley losing

That's Kennedy's seat - it would be shameful to put a Repuke there. Hopefully, MA comes to its senses.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulox]

125. It was beyond crass to glom his name on this private profit insurance bill in the first place.

[BlueDemKev]

127. As Barney Frank would say.....

...ON WHAT PLANET DO YOU SPEND MOST OF YOUR TIME? Do you actually believe Ted Kennedy wouldn't have voted to create the groundwork for health care reform? Taking over 18 percent of the nation's GDP is impossible to do in swoop. It must be done incrementally.

As yourself this: do you believe Ted Kennedy would actually want you to withhold your support from Coakley and allow a Republican to take his old seat?

Well, would he?

[TroglodyteScholar]

162. Brown doesn't even need to be ahead...

...he just need the race to be close enough for Diebold to steal it.

I do NOT have a warm fuzzy over this election.

[bvar22]

163. How many voters in Mass....

... support Mandates without a Public Option?

Nationwide, LESS than 35% support this.

What did the Democrats think would happen? :shrug:

[ParkieDem]

165. Personally, I think part of the reason Coakley is losing because ...

... people in Massachusetts have already seen the failure of Romneycare -- which is similar to the current health care bill in the sense that it requires people to purchase insurance but does little to bring down costs or enhance access.

If the true progressives could get a single-payer or public option back on the table, she would be in a totally different situation.

[LWolf]

166. I don't think calling it "Democratic health-care reform" is entirely accurate,

since there are plenty of Democrats unhappy with the direction the health-insurance bill is headed.

Does that influence support for Coakley? Are Democrats staying home?

[backscatter712]

169. It's the Suffolk poll again.

Excuse me for not being very impressed with this one.

Suffolk's poll is an outlier, and it's got a small sample size, and possibly a significant bias.