Delaying Certification in the Massachussetts Election

If Martha Coakley loses the U.S. Senate race in Massacussetts, can she delay the certification of the results and Scott Brown's taking office by asking for a recount? If Scott Brown loses, can he do the same to her?

If that happens, wouldn't the election's result on the health care vote be nil? As far as I can tell (and I am not an elections attorney) the Massachussetts statute provides (ALM GL ch. 54, § 116):[More...]

No certification shall be made or summons or certificate issued under this section until after five o'clock in the afternoon of the fifteenth day following a state election, or, in case a state-wide or district-wide recount is held in accordance with section one hundred and thirty-five, until the tabulation and determination under the preceding section have been revised in accordance with the results of such recount; provided, however, that such certification may be made or summons or certificate issued on or after the seventh day following a special state election, unless a candidate who received votes at that election files with the state secretary, not later than five o'clock in the afternoon of the sixth day following the election, a written statement of intention to seek a recount or otherwise to contest the election.

Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, since this is a special state election, the certification can't issue until 7 days after the election, and if any candidate files a request for a recount on or before the end of the 6th day, the certification doesn't issue until the recount issue is resolved.

Whether there is a recount may depend on the vote differential:

After a state general election, the Secretary of the Commonwealth must hold the recount petitions until after the official tabulation of votes is made by the Governor and Council. If the difference in the number of votes cast is more than one-half of one percent of the total votes cast, the district-wide recount will not be held. If the difference is one-half of one percent or less of the total vote cast, the Secretary of the Commonwealth must order the registrars of each city and town to proceed with the recount.

Per the MA Secretary of State, there must be three days notice of the recount date, and it could be scheduled up to 10 days after the recount filing deadline. So if a candidate filed on the 6th day, and 3 days notice is required, there would be at least a ten day delay of certification.

Under 2 USCS § 1a and 1b, the Governor must certify the results to the President, countersigned by the Secretary of State. So neither the Governor nor Secretary of State can act alone in certifying the results.

Here's a Daily Kos diary on the recount procedures and laws. And Brian Ross at ABC News adds his findings, but curiously, only discusses Coakely moving for a recount, not Brown.

< NY Times May Charge For Online Access | The Golden Globes: Red Carpet and The Show >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The recount only (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 03:30:14 PM EST
    works if it close. Trying to delay cerification won't help anybody and will actually make the party look as craven as the GOP did in MN.

    Whatever works (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 05:40:39 PM EST
    I would be more than willing to bet that if the situation were reversed, the Republicans would certainly delay it. Bush and company didn't ram their legislation through by playing nice. Democrats shouldn't either.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 07:00:34 PM EST
    but this bill is crap. And if Brown wins there's no guarantee that there won't be massive defections from other party members whereas Obama won't have the 60 votes anyway.

    the point is not what it looks like (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 03:32:00 PM EST
    but the effect on the health care vote if a recount is requested.

    Democrats won't care (none / 0) (#6)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 03:53:32 PM EST
    How they look but will do it anyway so that Obama can get his health care bill passed?  

    Obviously (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 03:52:42 PM EST
    this is a point that is bothering you regarding your opposition to Coakley.

    Could they do it? I suppose so. will they do it? No.

    You better safe harbor is that the house would pass the Senate bill and then that would be sent to the President.

    I do not care for the Senate bill myself, but if you do not think the negotiated terms that have occurred in the last two weeks make much of a difference, then you can feel comfortable.

    I do not think this idea you discuss in this post is realistic. It won't happen that way.

    It's a legitimate topic (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 04:30:25 PM EST
    being discussed in the news, that is, the effect of a recount request on the timing of seating and the health care bill. I think it's interesting, I'm not making predictions, just pointing out either side could ask for a recount and wondering what the effect would be.

    If you want to examine the statutes and answer the question, go right ahead. If it's not something you find worth discussing, you don't have to.


    I thought my comment was legitimate (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 07:52:58 PM EST
    To wit - not going to happen.

    What's not going to happen? (none / 0) (#53)
    by NealB on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 10:11:04 PM EST

    Obama added zero (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by lousy1 on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 05:59:22 PM EST
    This afternoon I brought a group of Cub Scouts to the USS Constitution. The caravan was delayed all through Charlestown Brown demonstrators/pedestrians. Most had hand made signs. On the Constitution while performing am impromptu tour I pointed to the don't tread on me ensign on the forecastle and asked the kids for identification. One 10 year old blurted out Martha Coakley (In obvious reference to the serpent) Ever one within earshot responded with applause.
    My observations are not unique. Obama could not fill the hall at NE . Bill Clinton was a flop in Worcester Saturday night.

    Look out

    From the Washington Post (none / 0) (#3)
    by itscookin on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 03:47:13 PM EST
    "Secretary of State William F. Galvin, citing state law, says city and town clerks must wait at least 10 days for absentee ballots to arrive before they certify the results of the Jan. 19 election. They then have five more days to file the returns with his office.

    Galvin bypassed the provision in 2007 so his fellow Democrats could gain a House vote they needed to override a veto of then-Republican President George W. Bush, but the secretary says U.S. Senate rules would preclude a similar rush today."


    Senate rules don't preclude it (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 03:54:17 PM EST
    That is absurd. He can choose not to do it, but he'll look pretty ridiculous.

    They won't do it.


    Totally agree (none / 0) (#8)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 03:55:51 PM EST
    They won't do it because there is nothing in it for them, other than plenty of criticism.

    Obama: The Real Sore Loser (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by kidneystones on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 06:54:09 PM EST
    I've avoided putting the President in the frame, and I think that the Brown/Kennedy/Coakley fight is very much a local one.

    On the larger scale I agree now with those who see this election as a referendum on 'hope and change' because nobody has more to lose than the occupant of the Oval Office.

    And he's already lost a lot in this race and will lose more on Tuesday irrespective of what the voters decide. MA voters have already decided they've seen enough 'hope and change' in one year.

    He delivered his petulant complaint that: 'I need MA Dems to get more fired-up to a less than full university audience at North Eastern University.

    I was in Boston on university campuses in 2008. Anybody else recall students crammed into auditoriums and out into the street. A year ago, crowds would have been swelling outside in the cold and students would have been happy to stand there, shivering.

    The 'future of the party' has already packed-up and left whether they're willing to acknowledge the fact to pollsters or themselves. Students in Boston were simply too busy to attend the rally. Maybe Obama should have asked schools to close. I mean, he has in the past.

    The hubris of the entitled is never pretty to see up close. The story of 2010 and perhaps the Dem party for the remaining three years of this already depressing presidency was written this Sunday in the auditorium of North Eastern University. Students are not 'fired-up'. They're freaked out because they're smart enough to realize that the guy they voted for can't deliver the job they need to make that $30,000 a year tuition fee a sound investment.

    Obama can't fill a hall one year into his presidency in MA in a student town on a university campus. The real vote has already taken place in one sense. Tuesday makes it official.


    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 07:04:31 PM EST
    what a post. And I agree that it's an already depressing presidency.

    Thanks, (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kidneystones on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 07:22:10 PM EST
    Sincerely wish, I was writing: Holy Crap! Health-care reform with a robust public option!

    If electing Brown is what it takes to shake up Dems, I have to say I hope he wins.


    But my (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 07:29:49 PM EST
    fear is that it won't wake up the party or they'll get the wrong message from it. All in all, I think a large problem is that so many of these people have been in congress since or during reagan that the've come to reside in some sort of bubble stuck in 1980. Or maybe I'm completely wrong about them. The ONE thing I do know is that was I was so excited when they took over congress in 2006 and it has been nothing but let downs and disappointments since then.

    It's only over 3 years, (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 08:50:45 PM EST
    that democrats have controlled Congress.  Surely that doesn't mean anything.  Does it?  



    Oh, I'd say Dems are wide awake and (none / 0) (#30)
    by kidneystones on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 07:46:09 PM EST
    wide-eyed, right about now.

    And that's a good thing.

    Chin-up. Only three more years. This is 99.99999 percent out of the hands of everyone but folks in MA.

    Obama may yet pack a hall somewhere, soon. My guess is the two Davids are organizing some sort of staged event right.

    Maybe at a military base, great place for a photo-op and the WH can command the seats be filled.


    Well (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 08:07:42 PM EST
    that's not very uplifting. The two David's are repeating the Rove trick of going somewhere where they can't question the leader and are mandated to behave.

    Chin up? (none / 0) (#38)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 08:27:50 PM EST
    "Only three more years"? I'm assuming that you want a Republican replacement.  Actually, you might want to consider that the early "wake up call" (January) may work to defer your celebration. It is a very interesting situation. Usually, when someone needs to take steps to shor up one's position or change some steps, they find out on the eve of an election. While I very much want Coakley to win, the fascinating thing is this could be one of those classic "mixed blessings." (Oh, and I say this as one very much involved in organizational politics. I'm not the wishful thinker that believes everything changes overnight at the switch of an election.)

    Only three more years (none / 0) (#45)
    by kidneystones on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    of the leader invested in his own sense of self-importance.

    I like to enjoy each and every day. And every morning for the next three years, I'll be waking up each day in a world where America doesn't have an effective leader. The only question is whether they'll be worse than the last nine.

    Some folks see the world through the prism of (D) and (R). Not me.

    Have a good one!


    Update: At least 500 Coakley supporters (none / 0) (#64)
    by kidneystones on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 01:44:05 AM EST
    Were shut out.

    I'm tempted to say simply that I got spun and leave it at that. But, I won't!

    The WH, the Coakley folks and those inside the auditorium are not producing much in the way of images.

    I had thought that was because they didn't want to show empty seats. Evidently, they didn't want to show who was sitting in the seats, or discuss what kind of reception Obama/Coakley actually got.

    I'll stand by central claim: students in Boston had better things to do than listen to more of the same. Can Dems get their attention a second time? Not with the same smoke and mirrors, I'd say.

    Still, to be clear: hall packed with plenty of Coakley supporters willing to line-up to get inside.


    I don't know how Massachusetts works (none / 0) (#4)
    by rdandrea on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 03:49:01 PM EST
    But in Colorado, that margin is only to trigger an automatic recount at state expense.  If the margin is greater, a candidate can still request a recount at his/her own expense.

    yes I think it's the same in MA (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 04:27:51 PM EST
    in that it's automatic if a candidate requests and the vote differential is under the percentage. It doesn't mean there can't be a recount if it's larger.

    Are you becoming concerned that she won't win? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Angel on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 04:06:07 PM EST

    I don't want her to win (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 04:32:34 PM EST
    having nothing to do with health care, but I believe she will win given the last minute push by Obama and the Dems. So no, I'm not concerned she won't win.

    Well, I can't stomach the thought of a republican (none / 0) (#13)
    by Angel on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 04:48:34 PM EST
    holding this Senate seat, for many reasons.  I saw where Big Dog was on the horn to the voters telling them to vote for her so hopefully his magic will work.  Obama, not so sure he has any magic.  lol  

    If nothing else (none / 0) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 04:54:49 PM EST
    the absolute orgasmic frenzy of gloating and triumphant crowing by the GOPers is something I'd frankly like to avoid at almost any cost.

    Ditto that. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Angel on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 04:59:22 PM EST
    If Brown wins, that's only the beginning (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 05:23:42 PM EST
    of the bad news.

    I'd force myself to bear up under it (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 05:32:27 PM EST
    as an alternative to the gloating and triumphant crowing of the Democratic Party, which will see a Coakley win as affirmation that they can continue to move the party to the right (and yes, getting Coakley to agree to vote for a decidedly un-Democratic bill is moving to the right), continue to pressure women candidates to sell out their own for the greater glory that is Obama, and will seal the deal for passing a travesty of a (urp) "reform" bill that is nothing more than a gigantic payoff for the insurance industry.

    Anne--What if you get the worst of both? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 08:37:47 PM EST
    If the Repubs win, you get the gloating and the ultimate fall back to a more (yep, more) cautious Congress ultimately. AND, you get the House passing the Senate bill without change so that a healthcare provision can be in place. The twosome could well happen. I'd hate to see that, of course. My point: When we get so angry as to slash our own, we often get slashed instead. (My dad taught me that on more than one occasion when he was trying to get me to see that sometimes we have horrible choices, and we may have to compromise to the point we don't want to or lose everything for a long, long time. That is a lesson I have lived with all my life. And, it definitely is why my comments reflect that middlin' approach that can be so infuriating to so many. I really do respect your comments. Honest. But, my life lessons have also been hard.)

    That may continue either way (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Manuel on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 10:36:59 PM EST
    The frame (from the MSM) for a Coakley defeat will be that the Democrats overreached with their "ambitious" HCR and that the voters have rejected "far left" policies.  This will further encourage the Nelsons, Liebermans, Bayhs, Landreauxs, Lincolns, etc. to continue to take conservative positions.

    WH clearly unhappy with left (none / 0) (#62)
    by kidneystones on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 11:07:52 PM EST
    Manuel calls it, except it seems that it's Gibbs taking shots at progressives. Not the media.

    "I don't know why some segments of political observers don't seem to be as motivated. There's a lot at stake."

    Seen the snaps of the Brown rally, wide-angle, full house. Well-behaved, highly-focused. No need to link. Whatever Obama saw looking out at the crowd at that Coakley rally wasn't bringing a smile to his face.

    My guess is he looked at the crowd we've yet to see clearly and saw: ONE TERM, writ large. My guess is others see that, too. Is it too early to say 'lame duck'? A week ago, I'd have laughed.

    Now? How much less can he accomplish?


    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 07:07:32 PM EST
    I don't know which is worse: The GOP gloating or Obama prancing around thinking he's the "one". It seems there is NOTHING positive in politics these days.

    I really don't understand you. (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by steviez314 on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 07:24:00 PM EST
    Polls show Coakley down maybe a few points.  If she pulls it out, just MAYBE it was the Obama visit.

    So MAYBE Obama claims some credit, and somehow that thought fills you with such dread.

    That hate just runs too deep for me.


    No (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 07:25:39 PM EST
    it's about the crap bill. This bill is crap. It is horrible and Obama prancing around thinking he's doing some great thing with this piece of junk is just as bad as the GOP gloating.

    I'm with you, Stevie (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 07:50:14 PM EST
    I really, really dislike the guy, but the knee-jerk opposition to everything he does from some commenters here is a corrosive cynicism that borders on nihilism.

    If Coakley pulls this out, Obama or no Obama, I don't think there'll be much crowing from Dems, just a shaky sigh of relief.


    And perhaps is she wins then it was Big Dog (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Angel on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 07:55:47 PM EST
    who made the difference and not Obama.  Just sayin'.

    Having had 'corrosive cynicism' misapplied to ... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ellie on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 08:24:31 PM EST
    ... my POV on the (dismal) Obama record in office, it's less a "knee-jerk opposition to everything he does" than shock at the dearth of actions, from him, that resemble even fractionally what he promised.

    So, no applause from me for whatever he and his circle of unnamed insiders do to protect his image. I wouldn't begrudge anyone saying "I told you so," if Obama somehow reacquaints Dems with core Dem values. I just don't think it's going to happen and I doubt his presence will count for much in MA.

    Right now, I'm just a curious onlooker.


    It is sad (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Manuel on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 10:58:33 PM EST
    I have never been an Obamaphile but some of the posts I am reading here are reminding me of the kind of posts I was reading about HRC during the primaries.  I understand that people are upset and disagree with the direction of the country under Obama but that isn't a reason to contract ODS.

    well (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 08:09:59 PM EST
    I hope you're right but we shall see. And don't confuse dislike for Obama's policy failures and political wimpyness for hatred. It's the same thing the GOP did with Bush.

    Just laying down a marker here... (none / 0) (#44)
    by lambert on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 08:53:21 PM EST
    ... that I think the crowing from the Obama fans on the access blogs will be intense and persistent.

    To: Steviez (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 08:57:19 PM EST
    "That hate just runs too deep for me." I agree that there is a powerful emotional undercurrent going on here--and, it has been evident for some time now. I've seen a lot of anger in my life; and, I've dished out a lot as well.  But, it really is getting to the point of hatred/anger/cynicism/seething overcoming political evaluation. Invective, fuming adjectives, put-downs. It is almost more depressing than the sorry state of the country. We all look at the situation we are in with degrees of concern and even fear; but, what is with the beating-up-on-each-other routine. Crisis points happen, and it hurts. We all have been there or are there. But--to tell you the truth--some of the crap appearing here competes with the darkest days of the pulling-apart of the 1960s.

    A competent (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 09:00:50 PM EST
    leader who knew what the he s/he was doing would help a lot. I know there are people who wnat to make excuses for Obama and that is their right but you are doing nothing good for the country and are simply as bad as the Bush apologist who could see nothing wrong with "their savior". the messiah complex isn't pretty whether there is a D or an R attached to it.

    Except (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 09:13:30 PM EST
    If one were just making excuses for someone previously idolized, that is one thing. If, however, one finds that a year is a bit too soon to arrive at a conclusion about a four-year presidential term, that is quite another statement. Count me in the latter category. Whether it is a job that any of us might have, a new relationship like a marriage, a move, etc., I think that a year is less than the minimum evaluation period. Seriously, I would expect changes in the wall street/main street reality and financial reform in the next year, for starters. But, for evaluation purposes--unless you were one of the enamored off-the-earth types--it will involve more than putting the sun and moon in different positions in a year. Lets look at the mistakes; and, the achievements.

    Oh, (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 09:51:46 PM EST
    good greif. he hasnt passed any good policy so far unless you think giving millions to bankers so they can write themselves checks good policy. he spent a year twiddling away any type of goodwill he had with the voters. We are still at double digit unemployement and things are not getting better. A year is time enough to start to show SOME improvement and it's not happening.

    The lists (none / 0) (#57)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 10:42:17 PM EST
    Actually, several papers are now publishing the first-year lists of accomplishments. To them and to me: The stimulus bill itself was huge--given the sudden (after Iraq and the double fall of 2008)deficit dilemma and resistance stemming from that. Many credit the stimulus $ with averting a deeper recession/depression. (Personally, I agree with Krugman's assessment late last winter that the stimulus $ should have been even larger to avert the probability of revisiting in the next year--which is where we are right now.) Then, stem cell research executive order has very real effects in peoples' lives. Then, ordering the dismantling of the costly and divisive (and probably ineffective) missile defensive shield slated for Poland (That decision particularly impressed the Nobel Committee as it considered overall practical peace initiatives.) Then, the Administration--through EPA administrator Jackson--lising forerunner pollutants as a long needed first step in the climate change battle. <And, I'll have to refer to the lists for more. But, suffice to say, I was surprised by the amount of significant legislative & executive actions in the first year. In fact, the legislation cohesion is being compared to that of LBJ who excelled in the area.> Taking on healthcare reform at the outset has obvious pluses and minuses--especially considering the 70 years of trying by earlier presidents--I wish that the Administration had not given into the miscalculation of optimism in the summer and driven the thing home then, but.... Yes, I hear your concerns. And, they are real (I yell about them privately all the time.) Yet, objectively, he really has done quite a bit in the first year--some good, some not so good--but, quite a bit under the circumstances handed him.

    The stimulus (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 04:40:35 AM EST
    bill was passed and unemployment has continued to go up. So the apologists are going to say: it woudl have bee worse if the bill hadn't passed i guess. Well, take that to the american public and see what you get.

    Oh, the Nobel thing was a joke. He shouldn't have even taken it.

    You're giving him plaudits for simply "attcking" the healthcare issue? It doesn't matter that he really did nothing and passed the buck off to Baucus. He gets a crap bill but he still wants to pass it?


    Christine (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 10:34:34 PM EST
    You say:

    It is almost more depressing than the sorry state of the country.

    And don't see the linkage -- that it is the sorry state of the country that is depressing so many people.  And after a full year, just money to banks and big business and still NO jobs bill.  That's a pretty d*mn depressing lack of leadership.

    Why you think that in a year, he could not come up with a jobs bill -- and was to get it going this week but put if off again to go politick again -- well, it's just not understandable.  It's nice for you to keep finding the sunny side of the street, but millions and millions of people's dreams are in the gutter.  I live with some of them, because they had to move back home after layoffs and medical crises and more -- and they're depressed about it, you bet.  So am I.


    Per recent NPR, hospitals do not (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 10:48:31 PM EST
    have jobs for new nurses.  Why?  Cutbacks plus many nurses who planned to retire are unable to and others who were not working in the field went back to working in nursing.

    I do see the linkage Cream City (none / 0) (#59)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 10:58:10 PM EST
    You often set out some very good points, and this one is another one as well. My real concern is that cynicism could reach a point of irreversible poisoning. To do anything requires a degree of optimism (else you might not even start.) The real cynical thing, btw, is that the years leading up to this Administration formed a toxic foundation for us. Look, I never have been a la-la hopey-changey follower. And, I think that lots of people were exposed to very real challenges and conflicts over the past year. Certainly, the Administration experienced the challenge of governance. I do have a realistic hope, tho: This President and administration have the capacity, predisposition, and potential to adapt as needed to produce and, thereby, succeed. Elsewhere I mused that the Massachusetts situation is so obvious that it could be a mixed blessing--you know, the kind of shove that we all need sometimes. Again, a full year is a full year--1/4 of a term--let's see what the next year brings. (This time we can push from the very beginning.)

    Well (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 07:26:57 PM EST
    according to the posters above he couldn't even fill up an auditorium with his visit.

    Blue Mass Group reports the gym was filled, lines (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by steviez314 on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 08:23:20 PM EST
    outside and people were shut out.

    Posters here have just gone off the deep end regarding Obama.


    What, no tweats? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kidneystones on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 08:45:00 PM EST
    Wonder why MA Dems are holding back all the pictures and video they've got.

    I read the Blue Mass claims at DKOS. And given the appalling anti-Brown rape mailer, the attempts to make Brown into a 'far-right nut', and other classless lies from MA dems, I'll be taking all their claims with an extremely large dose of salt.

    TPM, Atrios, the Left Coaster, and Digby must have elected not to run those wide-angle packed hall crowd shots.

    The WH, too.

    I'm sure there are some shots. There have to be a few fired-up Dems somewhere in MA. Well, aren't there?


    Naw (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 08:28:44 PM EST
    sorry don't believe them either. They're probably just as biased. Whatever. I'd like to see some independent reporting.

    Seems silly to me (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 08:37:15 PM EST
    He's the freaking President of the United States.

    I am pretty sure he can fill an auditorium.


    You would (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 08:54:29 PM EST
    think but who knows?

    Sucking on Lemons (none / 0) (#49)
    by kidneystones on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 09:02:52 PM EST
    Just visited TPM. The shot they have of Obama and Coakley is about as damning as possible.

    Not a hint of a smile about the man.

    Good thing it's not a close race.


    Whew (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 09:58:49 PM EST
    he certainly looks extremely petulant in that picture. Coakley looks good though.

    I'm pretty sure if he came to Milwaukee (none / 0) (#54)
    by NealB on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 10:25:14 PM EST
    he not only would not fill an auditorium, the teabaggers would get most of the coverage on the news.

    What would it be like in Puerto Rico?


    Nothing curious about not discussing (none / 0) (#20)
    by scribe on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 06:15:55 PM EST
    the possibility of Brown seeking a recount.

    You note:

    curiously, [Ross] only discusses Coakely moving for a recount, not Brown
    Brown seeking a recount will have no effect on the balance of the Senate, because there already is a Democrat holding the seat, but only until the result of this election is determined.  (Remember, the current setup - appointed placeholder and quick election for a replacement - is the product of the Mass. Commonwealth gov't pushing through a change to the law prior to Teddy's death, to undo the changes they'd made to prevent Romney from appointing a Rethug successor to Kerry in the event Kerry would have won the 04 election?) Brown could seek a recount to "tarnish" Coakley and provide the GOP with victimhood propagand, but unless he wins the recount the only effect of a recount would be to delay Coakley taking the seat from another Democrat.

    It's going to happen (none / 0) (#61)
    by NealB on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 10:59:30 PM EST
    It's going to be decisive. Democrats are fed up with Obama. Brown's going to win the Senate in Massachusetts on Tuesday 49% to 44% for Coakley. There won't be a recount; Kerry proved that MA Democrats happily fold when they're beat. Health care will die (thank you Massachusetts). Brown will be defeated in 2012.

    Thanks to the thousands of disgusted Democratic voters in Massachusetts that stay home next Tuesday. Senator Kennedy as much as anyone got Obama elected president. Obama betrayed Senator Kennedy's legacy with his deceitful dealings in composing a health care bill that forces the cost on those least able to pay for it. Coakley herself said she would not vote for such a travesty not long ago. Then Obama got to her and she betrayed Kennedy too.

    It's going to happen. If I lived in Massachusetts, I'd be outraged. Beyond reason. I'd go to the polls to vote for Brown against every instinct in my bones if only to say fvck you to Obama. It's not quite like what we did when I lived in Boston in 1980 and we voted for Anderson, but it's not much different.

    I think Coakley will win (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 12:50:30 AM EST
    and it won't even be a close race. He's all hype. And I say that as someone who doesn't want her to be a Senator because of her one-dimensional, old-style crime warrior views. She's a danger to criminal justice reform, and she'll keep the seat forever because no Dem will challenge her in 3 years. I think Brown's candidacy has been blown way out of proportion. The Dems will turn out because she's in peril. His voters probably not so much.

    Really? (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 10:02:56 AM EST
    The Republicans are energized. After NJ and VA, and now with Brown's resurgence, they smell blood in the water and are ready to pounce.

    And I seriously think there are a few Dems in the Senate who are rooting Brown on so they can whine that "they don't have 60 votes" and maybe the voters won't hold their feet to the fire as much.

    Bless their hearts.


    More recount stuff (none / 0) (#67)
    by Lora on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 05:35:58 PM EST
    Written by Nathan Barker and Brad Friedman:

    In Massachusetts, the state mandates that paper ballots be preserved according to a secure chain of custody. However, the state has no threshold or automatic system to require a hand-count of those ballots.  If the computer-generated tallies are accepted as legitimate, the actual paper ballots will never be counted or checked for accuracy unless one of the candidates files a petition. The petition filing must occur within 6 days of the election, requires at least 10 signatures per ward and "The petitioner must file a separate recount petition in each ward of a city or precinct of a town in which he desires a recount."

    The only way to guarantee accurate election results in Massachusetts is for a candidate to request a hand-count of all paper ballots in each town in the state - within 6 days of the election. Otherwise, the results of what could be an exceedingly close election, for an extraordinarily important U.S. Senate seat, could end up going to the candidate who didn't actually receive the most votes.